# Unconstitutional



## RonJ (Mar 15, 2006)

I have been thingking about all these smoking banns and it seem to me that most of them feel unconstitutional. I thought we live in a country the the FREE and the BRAVE. Does anyone feel the same? 
And if it is unconstitutional why isn't something being done to stop this madness!
I feel better now.:sb


----------



## danisirish (Feb 9, 2006)

RonJ said:


> I have been thingking about all these smoking banns and it seem to me that most of them feel unconstitutional. I thought we live in a country the the FREE and the BRAVE. Does anyone feel the same?
> And if it is unconstitutional why isn't something being done to stop this madness!
> I feel better now.:sb


majority rules, unless we can figure out how to filibuster all the non-smokers


----------



## Puro.Esq. (Feb 6, 2006)

RonJ said:


> I have been thingking about all these smoking banns and it seem to me that most of them feel unconstitutional. I thought we live in a country the the FREE and the BRAVE. Does anyone feel the same?
> And if it is unconstitutional why isn't something being done to stop this madness!
> I feel better now.:sb


There is no Constitutional right to smoke unlike the rights of free speech and free press etc.

I too have problems with the loud minority dictating what the majority can and cannot do with their personal lives . . . there is no Constitutional issue with regard to the anti-smoking laws.


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

RonJ said:


> I have been thingking about all these smoking banns and it seem to me that most of them feel unconstitutional. I thought we live in a country the the FREE and the BRAVE. Does anyone feel the same?
> And if it is unconstitutional why isn't something being done to stop this madness!
> I feel better now.:sb


This is in fact the land of the free but, freedom does have its boundaries.
Smoking is known to cause harm to humans. Second hand smoke has been known to be as bad as smoking. Freedom should not come at the cost of being able to inflict possible harm on others, while in public places.

I agree the smoking bans suck but I can clearly understand why they exist. Unconstitutional would be the day they tell me I can't smoke in my own home or patio. As long as it entails a public place, the good of the whole far exceeds that of the minority. Right now, we are the minority. I smoke cigars but detest cigarettes. I am so glad bans on them exist in restaurants in Florida. Cigars are a pleasure to me and to those of us on this board but there are many folks that detest them and are made uncomfortable.


----------



## LR120 (Feb 14, 2006)

There is no constitutional right to smoking and it's not a "loud minority dictating" it's a MAJORITY. A majority of people don't like cigarate and cigar smoke and they support legislation that bans it.


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

Puro.Esq. said:


> There is no Constitutional right to smoke unlike the rights of free speech and free press etc.
> 
> I too have problems with the loud minority dictating what the majority can and cannot do with their personal lives . . . there is no Constitutional issue with regard to the anti-smoking laws.


Let me address this, because it's a fundamental misunderstanding that's grown out of decades of powermongering in all forms and branches of government.

Our nation was founded upon Natural Rights, and our Constitution reflects that. In short, what it means is that you DO have a right to smoke, drink, gamble, curse, and shit your pants. The idea of America is that the government didn't let us do what we wanted - we allowed the government to do certain things for us.

*NOW HEAR THIS:
The Constitution isn't a list of what we CAN do, it's a list of what the government CAN'T do.*

Everyone ought to look at this website on Republic vs. Democracy to get a more clear idea of just how things (are *supposed *to) work around here.


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

Blueface said:


> This is in fact the land of the free but, freedom does have its boundaries.
> Smoking is known to cause harm to humans. Second hand smoke has been known to be as bad as smoking. Freedom should not come at the cost of being able to inflict possible harm on others, while in public places.


I would hate to live in a world where freedom has a boundary.

Your point is correct to a degree. The problem is that our governments, led by the Left, are redefining and redrawing the line between what's public and what's private.

How long do you think it will be before they DO tell you that you can't smoke in your own home? Do you really think they can't find some sort of "junk science" to establish a "reasonable" law to prohibit what you do in your own home?

They're already telling business owners who invested their own personal money and pay taxes that they cannot cater to a specific clientele or run their organizations how they want. That's the first step in redefining who owns your personal property - you, or the state.

I agree that those who feel as though they might be damaged by 2nd hand smoke should have an alternative. They can LEAVE and go to another place. Nobody has a RIGHT to work in any given office, for any given business, nobody has a RIGHT to eat at any given restaurant. If those nonsmokers who resent 2nd hand smoke despise it so much, then let them take their [email protected]&ing money and open their own smoke-free businesses and restaurants.

By allowing this to continue, we open the door to further transgressions.


----------



## RonJ (Mar 15, 2006)

Thanks, this was most helpful.



Hammerhead said:


> Let me address this, because it's a fundamental misunderstanding that's grown out of decades of powermongering in all forms and branches of government.
> 
> Our nation was founded upon Natural Rights, and our Constitution reflects that. In short, what it means is that you DO have a right to smoke, drink, gamble, curse, and shit your pants. The idea of America is that the government didn't let us do what we wanted - we allowed the government to do certain things for us.
> 
> Everyone ought to look at this website on Republic vs. Democracy to get a more clear idea of just how things (are *supposed *to) work around here.


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

Hammerhead said:


> Everyone ought to look at this website on Republic vs. Democracy to get a more clear idea of just how things (are *supposed *to) work around here.


Here's a good read:

http://www.williampmeyers.org/republic.html

Sort of goes along with my argument against us being a true republic.


----------



## Mad Dog Rocket (Mar 21, 2006)

Hammerhead is right, but it's a point long since lost on the American populace. All rights and powers not enumerated or granted to the government are reserved for the people. Technically the Bill of Rights is redundant... but you sure never hear that today.

But hammerhead, don't say led by the left. There are as few libertarians left in the Republican Party as there are amongst the Dems.


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

carbonbased_al said:


> Here's a good read:
> 
> http://www.williampmeyers.org/republic.html
> 
> Sort of goes along with my argument against us being a true republic.


Joe, go read the site I linked to then answer the question about which world you want to live in. The site you linked to is a classic case of spin tactics to justify an abridgement of freedom and transposing of concepts. Don't forget to hit their link to People's Rights vs. Citizen's Rights. Then ask yourself if our Nation is trending toward MORE personal freedom, or LESS.

If your answer is the latter, it's the thinking behind the rhetoric on the site you posted that's behind the deterioration of our liberty.


----------



## DWSC_Bob (Sep 12, 2005)

Hammerhead is correct. We have private property rights in this country. However, we have alowed the government to whittle away at those rights over time. What is unconstitutional about the smoking bans is dictating to private businesses that they cannot allow smoking in their establishment, on their property. A restaraunt or bar is not public property. That is whay an owner can have you removed as a trspasser from a restaraunt or bar. You are there at his/her discretion. Anti-smokers ar truly the minority and have been successful in forcing their will on the rest of us.
So if the government can force a private establishment to ban smoking on private property and the government can take your property to make way for a mall or condo (eminent domain) then what do you think is stopping them from dictating your ability to smoke in your own home or automobile? They have passed laws saying you cannot smoke on your patio if the smoke drifts across to a neighbor, that is an infringment on your property rights as well.
This is an excellent article about property rights:
Walter Williams


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

Mad Dog Rocket said:


> But hammerhead, don't say led by the left. There are as few libertarians left in the Republican Party as there are amongst the Dems.


Sorry, I call's 'em as I see's 'em.

On virtually every matter of personal choice and individual rights, the Democrats are, by and large, taken all in, opposed to you making personal choices for yourself or family.
Smoking
Guns
Education
Junk Food...

The list goes on. And I'd rather not send this thread on a bender to prove it, but if forced to, I think it would be a fairly easy matter to review it anecdotally by looking at which states have enacted anti-smoking laws, and whether they're red or blue states.


----------



## Mad Dog Rocket (Mar 21, 2006)

DWSC_Bob said:


> A restaraunt or bar is not public property


They became public the moment we created the first worker safety laws and anti-discrimination laws. A business owner may kick anybody out that they'd like, unless it's because of that person race, creed, etc. In other words that battle was lost a long time ago.



DWSC_Bob said:


> They have passed laws saying you cannot smoke on your patio if the smoke drifts across to a neighbor, that is an infringment on your property rights as well.


Yep, it's already happening.


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

Hammerhead said:


> I agree that those who feel as though they might be damaged by 2nd hand smoke should have an alternative. They can LEAVE and go to another place. Nobody has a RIGHT to work in any given office, for any given business, nobody has a RIGHT to eat at any given restaurant. If those nonsmokers who resent 2nd hand smoke despise it so much, then let them take their [email protected]&ing money and open their own smoke-free businesses and restaurants.
> 
> By allowing this to continue, we open the door to further transgressions.


Don't disagree with the ending at all.
As for the begining, it can be addressed by as an example, visiting a local hotel. Check and see how many smoking rooms they have v. how many non smoking. There is such limited demand for the smoking rooms that many hotels are now going totally non smoking. I know this first hand as my wife is a manager at a major, major hotel (think of Paris and Nicki). They are evolving to non smoking rooms purely out of economics, not pressure from non smokers.

Same goes for restaurants. If the majority of your clients don't want to be seated to dine while smoke is in their eyes, as a business man, you can't afford to cater to smokers only. Quite frankly, as a cigar smoker and former cigarette smoker, I detest cigarette smoke anywhere around me and would prefer to dine without it.

IMHO, some/certain smokers have brought this down on us. There needs to be common courtesy for mankind around us. If I know smoking irritates people around me, I need to be considerate of that. That is no different than blasting my Bose speakers at 1 A.M. while my neighbor needs to get up at 5 to go to work. Sure it is my right to listen to music how and when I want to but there are laws against that also that after 10, my butt can be hauled off to jail if they have to show up more than once due to the nosie.


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

Hammerhead said:


> Sorry, I call's 'em as I see's 'em.
> 
> On virtually every matter of personal choice and individual rights, the Democrats are, by and large, taken all in, opposed to you making personal choices for yourself or family.
> Smoking
> ...


Totally agree!!!


----------



## Mad Dog Rocket (Mar 21, 2006)

hammerhead said:


> The list goes on. And I'd rather not send this thread on a bender to prove it, but if forced to, I think it would be a fairly easy matter to review it anecdotally by looking at which states have enacted anti-smoking laws, and whether they're red or blue states.


There is no point in taking the thread down that path. Perhaps someday we'll get a chance to smoke some stogies and debate it in person


----------



## stig (Mar 9, 2006)

Blueface said:


> This is in fact the land of the free but, freedom does have its boundaries.
> Smoking is known to cause harm to humans. Second hand smoke has been known to be as bad as smoking. Freedom should not come at the cost of being able to inflict possible harm on others, while in public places.
> 
> I agree the smoking bans suck but I can clearly understand why they exist. Unconstitutional would be the day they tell me I can't smoke in my own home or patio. As long as it entails a public place, the good of the whole far exceeds that of the minority. Right now, we are the minority. I smoke cigars but detest cigarettes. I am so glad bans on them exist in restaurants in Florida. Cigars are a pleasure to me and to those of us on this board but there are many folks that detest them and are made uncomfortable.


^
^
^
^
What he said.

I agree with the bans as well. I am a musician, and there have been too many bars to list that I would play at until closing and by the time I left the club my clothes smelled so badly of cigarette smoke that I couldn't wait to get home and get out of them. Even as a cigar smoker, I don't enjoy having my clothing wreek of stale smoke and ash.:bx


----------



## roscoe (Feb 20, 2006)

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams 

Sigh,
Roscoe


----------



## Mad Dog Rocket (Mar 21, 2006)

stig said:


> I agree with the bans as well. I am a musician, and there have been too many bars to list that I would play at until closing and by the time I left the club my clothes smelled so badly of cigarette smoke that I couldn't wait to get home and get out of them. Even as a cigar smoker, I don't enjoy having my clothing wreek of stale smoke and ash.


Aaargh. I don't mean to get down on you Stig because I understand. But without the health argument smoking bans are baseless - it should be up to the bars to decide whether or not to allow smoking and you to decide whether or not to play there. Eventually most people will get sick of smoke and it would no longer be much of a concern... but people aren't that patient.

To Roscoe:
_We declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing._ - Abraham Lincoln


----------



## Alpedhuez55 (Dec 16, 2005)

For me it is about restricting what businesses can do. I mean if you own a smoke shop, you should be able to allow people to smoke in it if you wish. And the delivery companies giving in to the states and not shipping tobacco products is pretty bad too. 

It is just getting a little crazy.


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

Blueface said:


> They are evolving to non smoking rooms purely out of economics, not pressure from non smokers.... Same goes for restaurants. If the majority of your clients don't want to be seated to dine while smoke is in their eyes, as a business man, you can't afford to cater to smokers only.
> 
> There needs to be common courtesy for mankind around us. If I know smoking irritates people around me, I need to be considerate of that...


I think we're on the same track, and even the same train, but different cars. 

The difference here is that businesses, as well as people, should be making this decision based on their OWN criteria, not having it forced on them by government fiat.

Yes, common courtesy is the grease that silences the squeaky wheels of life... but do you really want Government to be the aribiter of where and when grease is applied, or are you more comfortable deciding for yourself, rather than faceless legislemmings and congresscritters deciding for you?


----------



## croatan (Mar 23, 2005)

Under current law, it would be hard to say that most smoking bands are unconstitutional. Basically, there are two kinds of rights: fundamental rights and non-fundamental rights. In order for a law to be passed abridging a fundamental right, the government must have a compelling reason and the law must be narrowly tailored to fit that reason. In order for a law to be passed abridging a non-fundamental right, the government needs only a rational basis for the law--this is a very low hurdle to jump. Fundamental rights are those things fundamental to our concept of ordered liberty--rights like procreation fit here. Smoking, as much as we may like it, is likely not a fundamental right. 

I think a more interesting argument would be that smoking bans constitute a public taking--that is, taking away the property interest of business owners without compensation. If a business loses sales or is forced to close because of lost profits due to a lack of patrons thanks to a smoking ban, and wants to bring suit, then maybe this kind of an argument would hold a little water.


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

croatan said:


> Basically, there are two kinds of rights: fundamental rights and non-fundamental rights.... Fundamental rights are those things fundamental to our concept of ordered liberty--rights like procreation fit here. Smoking, as much as we may like it, is likely not a fundamental right.


Whoa. I'm surprised to hear this coming from you!

Where I'm concerned, EVERY right is a fundamental right, because neither the GOVERNMENT, nor any individual or group of individuals, have a higher claim on me than I do. Period.

To go down this path opens the door to every transgression imaginable as the Government redefines "fundamental" by simply moving goalposts and shifting propaganda to suit its purpose.

I'd again recommend everyone take 10 minutes out to review The Philosophy of Liberty.


----------



## Eternal Rider (Feb 27, 2006)

We as a Nation have hadd our rights stripped from us ever so slowly at a time. We give up one liitle to compromise and we give another little oeice later on. If they stripped all your rights away at once the pepole would be howling,but alittle at a time and no one says a thing. This is a slippery slope and we better stand for our rights now or we will not have any at all.


----------



## croatan (Mar 23, 2005)

Hammerhead said:


> Whoa. I'm surprised to hear this coming from you!


Noticed I said "Under current law..."

I may not like the law, I was just trying to explain it.


----------



## MikeP (Jan 12, 2006)

Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The drafters argued over the inclusion of a Bill of Rights – and it was the Anti-Federalists who opposed the adoption of the new Constitution without the plans for the outline of rights. The argument was that such a listing of rights would be construed as limiting the rights held by the people. This is a common view held by many conservatives today and it is simply not true and denies the basic understanding of our founding fathers regarding the origin of our rights – be them from God or natural law. God has created us as a free people and we, in order to live in an orderly society, have surrendered some our rights to our state governments and the states to the federal government. This was done in order that we might live in a society that seeks to preserve and protect our freedoms. 

Amendment IX makes clear that the listing of rights contained in the Constitution does nothing to limit or deny those rights that we have retained. That is why marriage, although not listed in the Constitution, is considered a fundamental right. You can't argue that we have no right to smoke because it isn't enumerated in the constitution.

Amendment X points out clearly that those rights that we have not surrendered to the federal government are either retained by the state or the people themselves.

Unfortunately, when our own fellow-citizens began filing lawsuits against tobacco companies and our own fellow-citizens sitting on juries began finding in favor of plaintiffs and handing our gazillion dollar judgments we’ve just fed the anti-smoking nazi monster and he has grown bigger and bigger. 

Do I like going into smoke free restaurants? Yes. But that should be my choice and the business owner’s choice. When we begin allowing government to make that choice for us, everybody loses. Today it’s tobacco, tomorrow it maybe something the anti-smoking Nazis care about. Just depends on who is in control and whether the respect the principles of our constitution. 

I don’t know whether smoking would be considered a fundamental right but I’d like to see someone challenge these ridiculous laws in court.


----------



## rjose (Jul 7, 2005)

MikeP said:


> Do I like going into smoke free restaurants? Yes. But that should be my choice and the business owner's choice. When we begin allowing government to make that choice for us, everybody loses. Today it's tobacco, tomorrow it maybe something the anti-smoking Nazis care about. Just depends on who is in control and whether the respect the principles of our constitution.


Exactly!


----------



## Mad Dog Rocket (Mar 21, 2006)

Great post MikeP. I owe you a beer.

Of course their mistake might have been in allowing those rights be retained by the state... which they viewed as institutions of justice rather than what they have become.


----------



## MikeP (Jan 12, 2006)

Hammerhead said:


> Whoa. I'm surprised to hear this coming from you!
> 
> Where I'm concerned, EVERY right is a fundamental right, because neither the GOVERNMENT, nor any individual or group of individuals, have a higher claim on me than I do. Period.
> 
> To go down this path opens the door to every transgression imaginable as the Government redefines "fundamental" by simply moving goalposts and shifting propaganda to suit its purpose.


It is true that nowhere in the Constitution is there a distinction made between a fundamental right and some lesser right. But the courts have always made a distinction (ie political speech is given greater protections than commercial speech). I'm not saying that it is right and I don't necessarily like that it seems to allow a small group of unaccountable judges to decide for themselves what degree of protections we should enjoy.


----------



## MikeP (Jan 12, 2006)

Mad Dog Rocket said:


> Great post MikeP. I owe you a beer.
> 
> Of course their mistake might have been in allowing those rights be retained by the state... which they viewed as institutions of justice rather than what they have become.


The whole idea is that local government is (or should be) more accountable to the people rather than federal government. I believe that it is. The more local the government, the more accountable it is to its citizens.


----------



## croatan (Mar 23, 2005)

Hammerhead said:


> Where I'm concerned, EVERY right is a fundamental right, because neither the GOVERNMENT, nor any individual or group of individuals, have a higher claim on me than I do. Period.
> 
> To go down this path opens the door to every transgression imaginable as the Government redefines "fundamental" by simply moving goalposts and shifting propaganda to suit its purpose.


Another thing, under the current basis for review, even if smoking was a fundamental right, a smoking ban might still be found constitutional. The government's compelling interest would be preserving the health and welfare of its citizens (I'm not saying this persuades me, but there's a darn good chance it would persuade a court).

Personally, I believe that we should all be free to do whatever we please until such time as the exercise of our rights is outweighed by the exercise of another's and I can't think of any reason my right to smoke a cigar might therefore be outlawed by the government. However, I'm not on the Supreme Court (yet)


----------



## Mad Dog Rocket (Mar 21, 2006)

MikeP said:


> The whole idea is that local government is (or should be) more accountable to the people rather than federal government. I believe that it is. The more local the government, the more accountable it is to its citizens.


I understand the intent - and I agree that in general the local government is more accountable to the people. But this makes it easier to enforce the tyranny of the masses unless if local government is also also limited in power (and yes I know about the 14th amendment).


----------



## Ivory Tower (Nov 18, 2005)

Hammerhead said:


> Where I'm concerned, EVERY right is a fundamental right, because neither the GOVERNMENT, nor any individual or group of individuals, have a higher claim on me than I do. Period.
> 
> To go down this path opens the door to every transgression imaginable as the Government redefines "fundamental" by simply moving goalposts and shifting propaganda to suit its purpose.


This is wrong on many levels, hammerhead, like much of what you have said in this thread (no offense - I tend to like smoking where I want, too.)


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

MikeP said:


> The argument was that such a listing of rights would be construed as limiting the rights held by the people. This is a common view held by many conservatives today and it is simply not true and denies the basic understanding of our founding fathers regarding the origin of our rights - be them from God or natural law.


Uh... I think either you mis-spoke (mis-typed), or we have a significant disagreement on where the abridment of Absolute Rights under our Constitution comes from. I can assure you that it's not coming from the Conservative / Traditionalist elements in government, who all too well understand the 1st Principles of Liberty and what Original Intent means which is why SCOTUS judges like Roberts and Alito have been villified by the Left.


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

Ivory Tower said:


> This is wrong on many levels, hammerhead, like much of what you have said in this thread (no offense - I tend to like smoking where I want, too.)


Ok, then tell me who has a higher claim on your rights than you do? And kindly substantiate for me where my statements are "wrong".

*Before you answer, pelase go watch Philosophy of Liberty first.*


----------



## MikeP (Jan 12, 2006)

Hammerhead said:


> Uh... I think either you mis-spoke (mis-typed), or we have a significant disagreement on where the abridment of Absolute Rights under our Constitution comes from. I can assure you that it's not coming from the Conservative / Traditionalist elements in government, who all too well understand the 1st Principles of Liberty and what Original Intent means which is why SCOTUS judges like Roberts and Alito have been villified by the Left.


Maybe I should be more clear because I don't even mean the conservative movement as a whole but that there are some out there that call themselves conservative but take this view (for example, they may believe the only way to argue against abortion as a right is to claim that it is not listed in the constitution or they feel the need to challenge privacy rights because they are not specifically enumerated - and I am not arguing here in favor or against either these issues these are just examples off the top of my head) - but I do hear this often from conservative "talking heads", some radio show hosts, people like that this that tend to have an influence over the masses of people. My beef isn't with Roberts, Alito and the like. But you have to admit that there is a segment of so-called conservatives that tend to take the rather restrictive views concerning rights that are contrary to the principles that I think you and I both agree on.


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

MikeP said:


> Maybe I should be more clear because I don't even mean the conservative movement as a whole but that there are some out there that call themselves conservative but take this view...


Ok, yeah, then we're on the same page. What you're advocating is the Libertarian viewpoint. I advocate for "Right To Choice" for the same reason as Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Because it's always a PERSONAL and/or FAMILY choice, and not one for the government to make. And it's because I'm intellectually consistent on this, and other matters, that nobody can call me a hypocrite.

You see, when I vote to get government out of MY business, others reap the benefit because by extension, they get the government out of their business, too.

Sadly this is a concept many fail to grasp.


----------



## Mad Dog Rocket (Mar 21, 2006)

Holy crap it's nice to see some actual libertarians still kicking (Hammerhead and MikeP). I thought you guys were an extinct species these days.


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

Mad Dog Rocket said:


> Holy crap it's nice to see some actual libertarians still kicking (Hammerhead and MikeP). I thought you guys were an extinct species these days.


Ahoy, matey! We be a rare breed, indeed. Truly, though, I think there are more here and elsewhere than you'd realize.


----------



## Mad Dog Rocket (Mar 21, 2006)

Hammerhead said:


> Ahoy, matey! We be a rare breed, indeed. Truly, though, I think there are more here and elsewhere than you'd realize.


Unfortunately given that the Democrat/Republican choices are the only pragmatic ones on almost all ballots it's hard for that voice to be heard; most are forced to choose the "lesser of two evils." :tg


----------



## Ivory Tower (Nov 18, 2005)

Hammerhead said:


> Ok, then tell me who has a higher claim on your rights than you do? And kindly substantiate for me where my statements are "wrong".
> 
> *Before you answer, pelase go watch Philosophy of Liberty first.*


Well, if you take the perspective of a conservative Justice, they would say that the state has a higher claim on your rights, as provided in the Constitution, "The *powers* not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, *are reserved *to the States respectively, or to the people."

So the states have the power to enact legislation affecting you, the "people."

One simple example of when the government action trumps your rights is conveyed by the following: "The *right* of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, *shall not be violated*, and no Warrants shall issue, *but upon probable cause*, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

(This is all I am prepared to produce right now to show that one's rights are not absolute according to our nation under the 'rule of law.')

As far as the last statement, it is offers no logical reasoning for assuming a series of increasingly unacceptable consequences. This is called a fallacy of distraction, often under the name Slippery Slope.


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

Ivory Tower said:


> Well, if you take the perspective of a conservative Justice, they would say that the state has a higher claim on your rights, as provided in the Constitution, "The *powers* not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, *are reserved *to the States respectively, or to the people."
> 
> So the states have the power to enact legislation affecting you, the "people."
> 
> ...


I'd say you have a significant misunderstanding of the 10th Amendment, the Constitution and Original Intent. Regarding the 4th Amendment, that's the clause we refer to so as to establish our rights to privacy, but because you haven't substantiated any position or point but to quote the amendment, I don't know where you're going, so I can't respond.

Please do go look at Philosophy of Liberty and read Republic vs. Democracy. Then, come back and again answer the question: Are we trending toward MORE freedoms or LESS freedoms?


----------



## MikeP (Jan 12, 2006)

Ivory Tower said:


> So the states have the power to enact legislation affecting you, the "people."
> 
> One simple example of when the government action trumps your rights is conveyed by the following: "The *right* of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, *shall not be violated*, and no Warrants shall issue, *but upon probable cause*, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
> 
> ...


The 4th Amendment does not limit my rights in anyway but limits the goverments ability to infringe on my rights.


----------



## taltos (Feb 28, 2006)

Blueface said:


> .
> Unconstitutional would be the day they tell me I can't smoke in my own home or patio. QUOTE]Check out this thing in my state of Massachusetts: House Bill #3816 from Mr. Representative George N. Peterson, Jr. wants to prohibit the possession and use of all tobacco products with the following penalties: 1st offense-fine of no less than $150; 2nd offense-fne of no less than $200; 3rd offense-fine of no less than 300 or by imprisonment in a house of corrections for not more than 6 months. This would carry forward for 4th and subsequent offenses. You get less time and lower fines for aggravated assault, prostitution. the John law, possession of marijuana, and stealing a car. Has the world gone mad? BTW, in a final salute to political correctness, when I printed out this petition on my home printer, the bottom says "This Document has ben Printed on 100% Recycled Paper. I use premium Xerox paper. Does this crap scare you? I think that this is where the anti-smoking Nazis really want to go. Paul


----------



## Mad Dog Rocket (Mar 21, 2006)

MikeP said:


> The 4th Amendment does not limit my rights in anyway but limits the goverments ability to infringe on my rights.


I don't thing I agree, but it's nice brain twister.

So does defining how and when the government may limit your rights limit them, or does it just lay out the conditions upon with the government may limit them, thereby limitting the government? Fascinating.


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

Mad Dog Rocket said:


> I don't thing I agree, but it's nice brain twister.
> 
> So does defining how and when the government may limit your rights limit them, or does it just lay out the conditions upon with the government may limit them, thereby limitting the government? Fascinating.


I know you are, but what am I?

:r


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

You guys have posted some really great stuff here.
It is truly a great debate to read.

May not be popular but I can't help but bring us back to the issue at hand.

Is it a right to do something that causes harm, not only to yourself but more importantly, to innocent others around you?
As an example, we have the right to bear arms. That doesn't give us the right to go waving the gun in the street and shooting it all over the place. Doing so would be a public harm. Likewise, smoking is a proven public harm, whether we as BOTLs wish to accept it or ignore it.

I totally understand all the points rasied but as much I personally try to digest it, the fact remains that we are the minority when it comes to smoking. It is very hard for me to imagine convincing folks to let me smoke wherever I want given what everyone around me knows about tobacco today.


----------



## stig (Mar 9, 2006)

Mad Dog Rocket said:


> Aaargh. I don't mean to get down on you Stig because I understand. But without the health argument smoking bans are baseless - it should be up to the bars to decide whether or not to allow smoking and you to decide whether or not to play there. Eventually most people will get sick of smoke and it would no longer be much of a concern... but people aren't that patient.
> 
> To Roscoe:
> _We declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing._ - Abraham Lincoln


I was actually ageeing with the comment by Blueface that covered the health issue as well.


----------



## Dogwatch Dale-cl (Sep 7, 2005)

Sorry, short threadjack - 

I've got to say I'm very happy to see this debate being handled on all sides with respect and positive behavior. I was watching a political debate on another board this morning that quickly dropped into name calling, insults and plain childish behavior. We will not always agree, but it's nice to see the gorillas playing fair in the middle of disagreement!

Threadjack over - please continue....o


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

taltos said:


> Blueface said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

Blueface said:


> Is it a right to do something that causes harm, not only to yourself but more importantly, to innocent others around you?
> As an example, we have the right to bear arms. That doesn't give us the right to go waving the gun in the street and shooting it all over the place. Doing so would be a public harm. Likewise, smoking is a proven public harm, whether we as BOTLs wish to accept it or ignore it.


Ah. Well, you picked my favorite hot button.

Answer: My rights end where yours begin.

Is it my right to do myself harm? You betcha.

What's happened in America is that the notion of the role of government has been turned on its head. Rather than enabling the government to press a penalty for a true violation of someone's rights, the paradigm has been to take the rights away altogether.

We've become so desensitized to government telling us what to do, or not to do, that many haven't developed the sense of responsibility to themselves or those around them. And that's the truly slippery slope that our Founders wished to prevent and avoid. An entire civilization of people who have no capacity to think for themeslves, and resolve their issues, without some sort of government agent or department in the middle.

So, where smoking in a public park, as long as it doesn't dursturb anyone, would be a perfectly sensible thing to do, we now can't smoke in the park at all.

What would be a reasonable, responsible and sensible thing to do is to provide for a penalty if someone lodges a complaint, the same way if someone breaks into your home, you have to press charges or the government doesn't have the authority to do anything.

In other words, if a waft of cigar smoke passes in the jungle, but nobody is there to breathe it, does it make any smell?

:z


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

Hammerhead said:


> Ah. Well, you picked my favorite hot button.
> 
> Answer: My rights end where yours begin.
> 
> ...


No doubt I agree with the do your own harm thing but the problem here is not that you are harming yourself, its that you are taking others with you.
I also agree about the park thing. Plenty of places to sit and smoke and not bother anyone. Problem is the few that don't care and do it in your face, whether you like it or not. As a smoker, I never did that but did in fact run into folks that did. That is the main reason I don't smoke in my house, out of courtesy to my wife and children.


----------



## Mad Dog Rocket (Mar 21, 2006)

stig said:


> I was actually ageeing with the comment by Blueface that covered the health issue as well.


I figured... it just gets under my skin because I know that's the impetus behind a lot of bans but they spread like wildfire because people just don't like smoke. I've been in a lot of debates about it in my local area and for most people it really does boild down to comfort rather than any serious concern for bartenders or for themselves. I'm not accusing you of this, just explain why I get touchy about it.


----------



## taltos (Feb 28, 2006)

I agree with bars and cafes having the right to ban smoking if they so desire. I do not agree with the states deciding to ban smoking city-wide. I do agree with the idea that as smokers, we do have to have respect for non-smokers, unless they are in a smoking area. I do find that MA bill that I posted dangerous and I find some information that I was sent that a pipe-carver in CO that only employed one other worker, who was also a pipe and cigar smoker was enjoined from smoking in the workplace. Certain aspects if the smoking bans make me question where we live. It seems that parts of US Constitution Articles 9 & 10 question what the states are doing. Loose interpretation, but that is what lawyers do and I am not a lawyer. In addition, now that some states do not allow the shipment of tobacco products seems to violate both the constitution where it is said that the federal government may not constrain trade between the states and the initial rules and regulations of the Interstate Commerce Code. Somehow I think that if they heard a case, the Supreme Court would have a blast with the smoking and shipping bans. Paul


----------



## Mad Dog Rocket (Mar 21, 2006)

taltos said:


> US Constitution Articles 9 & 10 question what the states are doing


Unfortunately as I hinted at before these apply to the federal government, not state and local.


----------



## roscoe (Feb 20, 2006)

Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. 
It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. 
The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated: 
but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

Written by C.S. Lewis


----------



## stig (Mar 9, 2006)

Mad Dog Rocket said:


> I figured... it just gets under my skin because I know that's the impetus behind a lot of bans but they spread like wildfire because people just don't like smoke. I've been in a lot of debates about it in my local area and for most people it really does boild down to comfort rather than any serious concern for bartenders or for themselves. I'm not accusing you of this, just explain why I get touchy about it.


I understand, and on the second half of it, I always wished that there were more places to play that were smoke free but they were few and far between. My eyes were always red and dry by the end of the night and if I didn't wash my clothes the same night then the smell of stale cigaretts would make me sick.u

There should be places for people to smoke in public as long as they are places that the smoke won't come into direct contact with kids and adults who don't smoke.


----------



## Mad Dog Rocket (Mar 21, 2006)

roscoe said:


> Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.
> It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
> The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated:
> but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
> ...


Great, great quote once again roscoe.

_If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you._ - Don Marquis


----------



## Mad Dog Rocket (Mar 21, 2006)

stig said:


> I always wished that there were more places to play that were smoke free but they were few and far between.


I cannot grant agreement on your last sentiment, but in this we are definitely agreed.


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

Blueface said:


> No doubt I agree with the do your own harm thing but the problem here is not that you are harming yourself, its that you are taking others with you... As a smoker, I never did that but did in fact run into folks that did. That is the main reason I don't smoke in my house, out of courtesy to my wife and children.


The problem is that when people have choice, there's no harm done, period. When a nonsmoker walks into a smoking establishment, they can leave. That's a choice. No harm.

Answer this question. What RIGHT does that nonsmoker have to eat at this particular restaurant? I come up with: None. Zero. Zip. So, you can see that these "health issues" are just red herrings for extremist ideology to force more government control into your life.

Now, by extension, answer this question. How long do you think it will be before laws are passed in the interest of "health issues" before you CAN'T smoke in your own home? Think it won't happen? Think again!

A right denied to one, is a right denied to all.


----------



## roscoe (Feb 20, 2006)

There were two politicians in NJ who recently tried to outlaw smoking in your car. Thankfully it went nowhere..........this time..........

Roscoe


----------



## joshua-cr (Sep 7, 2005)

I think instead of whining about the smoking bans maybe we should talk to our government and try to work out a way we can still have places to enjoy smoking instead of an all or nothing view of it. If a business can show that it has proper air ventilation system in a designated smoking area then they should be allowed to have smoking even if it isn't their main business. I think that is what we call a compromise and seems a bit more sensible to work towards than just saying "Ohh I hate this damn goverment, I blame the [Insert political group here] why can't they just let everyone smoke all over the place"


----------



## roscoe (Feb 20, 2006)

Our cigar club is forming a private club. We rented 4200 sq ft in a commercial area and will have no employees.

Check http://www.metrocigar.com for updates on our progress. We are currently gutting the place and laying out the floorplan.

You can't negotiate with these people......They just want more and more control over your life.

Screw em,
Roscoe


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

roscoe said:


> There were two politicians in NJ who recently tried to outlaw smoking in your car. Thankfully it went nowhere..........this time..........
> 
> Roscoe


The primary sponsor is Loretta Weinberg, a far-left anti-gun Democratic idealogue. Once again proving my point that a preponderance of this social engineering and jerrymandering with your privacy comes far more from one side of the spectrum than t'other.


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

Hammerhead said:


> The problem is that when people have choice, there's no harm done, period. When a nonsmoker walks into a smoking establishment, they can leave. That's a choice. No harm.
> 
> Answer this question. What RIGHT does that nonsmoker have to eat at this particular restaurant? I come up with: None. Zero. Zip. So, you can see that these "health issues" are just red herrings for extremist ideology to force more government control into your life.
> 
> ...


Lets take an airline seat for example.
Should a smoker be allowed to smoke next to a non-smoker who has no choice or knowledge?
Should a non smoker have to walk through a wall of smoke to go to the head while on the flight?
Should my child have to sit there and inhale that smoke for 3 hours or whatever?


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

Blueface said:


> *Lets take an airline seat for example.
> Should a smoker be allowed to smoke next to a non-smoker who has no choice or knowledge?
> Should a non smoker have to walk through a wall of smoke to go to the head while on the flight?*


The nonsmoker can decide to fly on a flight or airline that doesn't allow smoking. Also, are the nonsmoking flights a POLICY of the PRIVATE AIRLINE, or are they legislated? Why has America become so petrified of a free market?

The question of market acceptance of smoking restaurants versus nonsmoking makes my point for me. But by letting the government decide, none of us have a choice.


----------



## Mad Dog Rocket (Mar 21, 2006)

hammerhead said:


> The primary sponsor is Loretta Weinberg, a far-left anti-gun Democratic idealogue. Once again proving my point that a preponderance of this social engineering and jerrymandering with your privacy comes far more from one side of the spectrum than t'other.


Unfortunately I view my right of privacy to include not getting spied on by the NSA a la McCarthy, the 50s and J. Edgar 

But like I said, I could go on like this all day, but I won't.


----------



## roscoe (Feb 20, 2006)

What's a little smoke? Try driving through the Lincoln Tunnel a few times. Or just walking down the street in NYC. How about sitting next to some Bimbo in a restaurant with a ton of perfume.....bad perfume. or screaming kids on an airline or in a restaurant? 

It seems to me that some of the anti-smoking crowd is a bit too sensitive. They want to live in their own bubble....and then force the rest of society into it.....

Roscoe


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

roscoe said:


> It seems to me that some of the anti-smoking crowd is a bit too sensitive. They want to live in their own bubble....and then force the rest of society into it.....Roscoe


The great thing about this debate is that at the end of the day, we are all smokers and are all the victims of what is taking place.

Through it all, we have to keep in mind that everyone has a different opinion and it is only via our personal convictions that we think ours is the right one. To the guy down the street, his is the right one. The guy across the street thinks his is the right one.

You say they are a bit too sensitive? Well, if it bothered you, I bet you would feel the same. Whether we care to agree with the bans or not is not the question I pose. Instead, switch roles and see how it would feel. Again, after having given up cigarettes nearly 20 years ago, I detest cigarette smoke and detest having anyone around me smoking. I detest eating and smelling cigarette smoke instead of my steak. I am darn glad restaurants don't allow smoking as on my last trip to Vegas (where it is allowed), I dropped $200 on a steak dinner I couldn't enjoy thanks to the chimneys next to me. No matter where I went, they catered to smoking there. That sucked, even coming from a guy like me that smokes 3-10 cigars on any given week.

Again, I hear the fears of what this can turn to and you are right. Just don't allow that fear to blind us from what we in fact are doing to those around us every time we elect to blow smoke.


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

Mad Dog Rocket said:


> Unfortunately I view my right of privacy to include not getting spied on by the NSA a la McCarthy, the 50s and J. Edgar
> 
> But like I said, I could go on like this all day, but I won't.


If you're referring to the recent flap over monitoring specific calls by specific individuals to specifically known terrorist sponsoring states, I'd acquaint you with Echelon and Carnivore, which are the most egregious violations of privacy to date (enacted in a pre-9/11 time), because ALL web browsing, emailing and phone calls are monitored - not just specific persons. OH... and lest I forget, we can thank the Clinton administration for that little gem.

*"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..."*
_Bill Clinton (USA TODAY, 11 March 1993, page 2A) _

Hmmmm... I wonder which "ordinary" Americans he had in mind.


----------



## Mad Dog Rocket (Mar 21, 2006)

Hammerhead said:


> If you're referring to the recent flap over monitoring specific calls by specific individuals to specifically known terrorist sponsoring states, I'd acquaint you with Echelon and Carnivore, which are the most egregious violations of privacy to date, because ALL web browsing, emailing and phone calls are monitored - not just specific persons. OH... and lest I forget, we can thank the Clinton administration for that little gem.
> 
> *"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..."*
> _Bill Clinton (USA TODAY, 11 March 1993, page 2A) _
> ...


You underestimate me if you think that "Clinton did it first/worst" will result in anything but a mild chuckle. His record on privacy rights was abysmal. I've attacked him for that many times.

BTW, As a member of EFF I'm well aware of Echelon and Carnivore, no need to reacquaint me.


----------



## MikeP (Jan 12, 2006)

Hammerhead said:


> The nonsmoker can decide to fly on a flight or airline that doesn't allow smoking. Also, are the nonsmoking flights a POLICY of the PRIVATE AIRLINE, or are they legislated? Why has America become so petrified of a free market?
> 
> The question of market acceptance of smoking restaurants versus nonsmoking makes my point for me. But by letting the government decide, none of us have a choice.


Exaclty. In most restaurants, I have the choice between sitting in smoking or non and I choose non-smoking. If the restaurant chose to not offer me that choice, that is their choice. I can go their restaurant or I can find one that offers what I want. In downtown Milwaukee, I can go to a smoke-free bar if I want and I know that if I go to some places, I will have to deal with cigarette smoke. But I'll choose the one filled with cigarette smoke, not because I like stinking like dirty cigarettes at the end of the day but because they offer free pizza with every purchase of a pitcher of beer on Thursdays. I like having choices and I like that businesses have the choice regarding what they will offer their customers. It is all about the free market and letting the market dictate.

Unfortunately, on some issues, some groups don't want to let the markets decide - they don't even want your legislature to decide because they know that the markets and the bodies representing the people generally don't agree with their positions. So instead they find activist courts to promote their unpopular ideas that they believe are clearly superior.


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

Blueface said:


> The great thing about this debate is that at the end of the day, we are all smokers and are all the victims of what is taking place....
> 
> Through it all, we have to keep in mind that everyone has a different opinion and it is only via our personal convictions that we think ours is the right one....
> 
> Again, after having given up cigarettes nearly 20 years ago, I detest cigarette smoke and detest having anyone around me smoking. I detest eating and smelling cigarette smoke instead of my steak.


Agreed that we're all suffering for it, and unjustly so, IMO.

Regarding opinions, I seem to be getting some mileage out of this one today. There are three definitions of the word "Opinion" that come into play here:

o·pin·ion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pnyn)
n. 
1) A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof... 
2) A judgment based on special knowledge... 
3) A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing...

Speaking just for myself, I'd rather base my opinion on #2, but it seems far too many icline toward #'s 1 or 3. Case in point, I have been known to change my opinion based on lucid debate and a preponderance of evidence that shoes my opinion is incorrect.

Regarding the cigarette smoking, I also quit over 20 years ago, but never believed that I had a right to smoke in a nonsmoking section, and either I would have to "suffer" through my meal and wait until I was done before I lit up, or excuse myself and go to the bar.

So, case in point regarding choices, you could have had your $200 steak dinner via room service or gone to another restaurant. But you CHOSE to eat next to the chimneys. That's a decision YOU have control over, and it is wrong to force them to stop smoking any more than it's right for them to deny you the right to smoke a cigar in a restaurant that accommodates smokers.

Just an "opinion" that I believe falls into category #2.


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

MikeP said:


> Unfortunately, on some issues, some groups don't want to let the markets decide - they don't even want your legislature to decide because they know that the markets and the bodies representing the people generally don't agree with their positions. So instead they find activist courts to promote their unpopular ideas that they believe are clearly superior.


Sounds like you are inferring those groups are the minority and we are the majority.
If that is the case, we should be ruling.


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

Mad Dog Rocket said:


> You underestimate me if you think that "Clinton did it first/worst" will result in anything but a mild chuckle. His record on privacy rights was abysmal. I've attacked him for that many times.
> 
> BTW, As a member of EFF I'm well aware of Echelon and Carnivore, no need to reacquaint me.


Chucke if you will, but given the choice between one and the other, at least one is seemingly less intrusive.


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

Hammerhead said:


> So, case in point regarding choices, you could have had your $200 steak dinner via room service or gone to another restaurant. But you CHOSE to eat next to the chimneys. That's a decision YOU have control over, and it is wrong to force them to stop smoking any more than it's right for them to deny you the right to smoke a cigar in a restaurant that accommodates smokers.


Nope.
You couldn't be further from reality on this point.
I simply chose to go to a restaurant in a city that every restaurant allows smoking.
Not like I could return to my city to eat and then go back there to finish my vacation in Vegas.
So......I suppose since I didn't want to smell like cigarettes while eating dinner, my choices are:
* Don't eat
* Stay in and order room service
* Eat in my car

Any of the above are fine but restaurants are out of the question so the chimneys can have them all to themselves?
Oh, that is right. Forgot. Should have avoided Vegas in the first place due to smoking.

P.S.
Should have seen my wife.
She was ready to shoot them yet she enjoys the odor of a fine cigar. Reminds her of her dad in Cuba.


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

Blueface said:


> Sounds like you are inferring those groups are the minority and we are the majority.
> If that is the case, we should be ruling.


And that, my dear friend, is why our Founders created a REPUBLIC rather than a DEMOCRACY. Because you wouldn't want to be accused of murder where 51 of 100 jurors could send you to the electric chair because they're "the majority".


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

Blueface said:


> Nope.
> You couldn't be further from reality on this point.
> I simply chose to go to a restaurant in a city that every restaurant allows smoking.
> Not like I could return to my city to eat and then go back there to finish my vacation in Vegas.
> ...


Bingo. You knew what the deal is in Vegas beforehand. Or, if you feel there's a market for it, open a nonsmoking steakhouse, and I'd bet a million bucks that you'll get a lot of business.

By the way, I also don't like smoking while I eat, and never have. The difference is that I know it's MY limitation and problem and if I didn't like the conditions, I found somewhere else to go.


----------



## MikeP (Jan 12, 2006)

Blueface said:


> Sounds like you are inferring those groups are the minority and we are the majority.
> If that is the case, we should be ruling.


I often believe there is a silent majority that have imposed on them the will of a small minority. I don't know that this is the case with smoking in today's society. I am probably with the majority that thinks smoking cigarettes regularly is an unhealthy practice. Smokers are in the minority. But I am sure that there are many non-smokers who also agree that the anti-smoking zealots can be out of control. It is politically correct to be anti-smoking today. But I am pretty sure that these zealots really made big time headway towards their objectives by scoring bigtime judgments against tobacco companies in court.


----------



## Mad Dog Rocket (Mar 21, 2006)

Hammerhead said:


> Chucke if you will, but given the choice between one and the other, at least one is seemingly less intrusive.


But the current Pres never shut down Carnivore willingly. So he has both to hang his hat on. And need I mention Poindexter and TIA? All on his watch.

C'mon. I'm not claiming one side is better or worse because I recognize the false left/right dichotomy that rips so many otherwise like-minded people apart. It only works to the benefit of those already screwing things up.

Hmm... apparently I'm breaking my vow of not doing this all day


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

Mad Dog Rocket said:


> But the current Pres never shut down Carnivore willingly. So he has both to hang his hat on. And need I mention Poindexter and TIA? All on his watch.
> 
> C'mon. I'm not claiming one side is better or worse because I recognize the false left/right dichotomy that rips so many otherwise like-minded people apart. It only works to the benefit of those already screwing things up.
> 
> Hmm... apparently I'm breaking my vow of not doing this all day


LOL!

Yeah, I've gotten a lot done today... NOT. 

Yes, we do fall into the trap of left vs. right... it's better to look at government in the spectrum that the founders did, between Anarchy and Totalitarianism.

We can debate the merits of Democrats vs. Republicans later. I got stuff to do so I can continue to pay my taxes so I can have my rights stolen from me.


----------



## Mad Dog Rocket (Mar 21, 2006)

hammerhead said:


> Yes, we do fall into the trap of left vs. right... it's better to look at government in the spectrum that the founders did, between Anarchy and Totalitarianism. We can debate the merits of Democrats vs. Republicans later.


Excellent point... let's hit that another day we feel like being productive (on the :sb).


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

Hammerhead said:


> The difference is that I know it's MY limitation and problem and if I didn't like the conditions, I found somewhere else to go.


Here is what I don't understand.
Why is it the limitation of the non smoker and not that of the smoker?
If there are two sides, as there are here, don't you think the non smoker has a right to be as passionate about the smoker being the one that should go elsewhere? What exactly am I missing that allows a smoker to do what he wants and force a non smoker to either submit or move on elsewhere? What is so wrong with that thought from that other side? We can't possibly be serious in believing we smokers are right and the rest of the world is wrong and just out to get us. We can purport to think that but we certainly cannot truly believe that is right when night time falls and we lay our heads to our pillow.
People are dying from this stuff.
That is serious!


----------



## ResIpsa (Mar 8, 2006)

Partially true: always keep in mind the seperation between the states and the Feds. And the important thing here to realize is what the constitution expressly makes clear: those powers NOT granted to the federal government are expressly reserved to the states. what that means in practice is, assuming the issue is not addressed by the Constitution, any individual state is perfectly free to criminalize, outlaw, demonize any particular activity that State cares to. AND IT IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE. The remedy we all have as citizens is to vote into office those who ideas we agree with


Hammerhead said:


> NOW HEAR THIS:
> The Constitution isn't a list of what we CAN do, it's a list of what the government CAN'T do.


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

Blueface said:


> If there are two sides, as there are here, don't you think the non smoker has a right to be as passionate about the smoker being the one that should go elsewhere?


Because it's (theoretically) MY restaurant, the same way it's MY home, and YOUR preferences don't hold sway on my turf.

Thousands of children die every year from drowning in buckets... that's far more serious than 2nd hand smoke. Yet we don't have any national hysteria over that, now do we? ;-)


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

ResIpsa said:


> Partially true: always keep in mind the seperation between the states and the Feds. And the important thing here to realize is what the constitution expressly makes clear: those powers NOT granted to the federal government are expressly reserved to the states. what that means in practice is, assuming the issue is not addressed by the Constitution, any individual state is perfectly free to criminalize, outlaw, demonize any particular activity that State cares to. AND IT IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE. The remedy we all have as citizens is to vote into office those who ideas we agree with


Partially true on your part - refer to the 10th amendment:



Founding Fathers said:


> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, *or to the people*.


That statement reserves powers ultimately to THE PEOPLE, those same people mentioned in We The People. It's about OUR power and rights, *not *the State or Fed.


----------



## rumballs (Mar 15, 2005)

taltos said:


> Check out this thing in my state of Massachusetts: House Bill #3816 from Mr. Representative George N. Peterson, Jr. wants to prohibit the possession and use of all tobacco products with the following penalties: 1st offense-fine of no less than $150; 2nd offense-fne of no less than $200; 3rd offense-fine of no less than 300 or by imprisonment in a house of corrections for not more than 6 months. This would carry forward for 4th and subsequent offenses. You get less time and lower fines for aggravated assault, prostitution. the John law, possession of marijuana, and stealing a car.


I don't think this is true.
I only find mention of it as you state here:
http://www.tobaccofreemass.org/billsummaries.php

But I do find:


> Massachusetts House Bill 3816 - An Act To Authorize Zoning Density Bonuses To Promote Housing Production.


http://www.realtor.org/SG3.nsf/Pages/CustomLegProgram?OpenDocument
http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/ht03/ht03156.htm

I did find this, in an article about the smoking ban in restaurants:


> The advocate of that proposal, Representative George N. Peterson Jr., suggested it was disingenuous for lawmakers to eliminate smoking from certain venues while still permitting the sale of cigarettes.
> 
> "It's somewhat like the drug dealer. Gets you hooked. Makes a ton of cash. The difference is the drug dealer is illegal," said Peterson, a Republican from Grafton. "But we're going to continue to sell that tobacco product and continue to collect those taxes. But we're going to tell you where you can smoke it."
> 
> That measure failed, as did the other attempts to stop the ban.


http://www.restaurantedge.com/index.phtml?news=1&newsid=422

So maybe that's where it came from....

And then there's this, about banning smoking in indoor flea markets:
http://www.no-smoking.org/april99/04-15-99-5.html

If you actually have a source for your claim, I would be interested to see it...


----------



## TTgirl (Sep 8, 2005)

Well, I read through the entire thread, and I've really enjoyed the discussion in terms of both information and tone. You guys all should pat yourselves on the back. 

One thing that hasn't popped up here, however, is that in order to sell an idea to the public, you need to have compelling evidence on your side, namely the type that will scare the bejeezus out of people who otherwise wouldn't have a dog in the fight.

Back in the mid-80's, a man by the name of Dr. Arthur Kellerman from Emory University conducted a study about guns in the home for the CDC (Centers for Disease Control). You've probably heard the results of the study somewhere in passing - "a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." Gun control advocates quickly picked up the statistic to bolster their desires to put severe restrictions on gun owners and gun purchases.

There was one problem, however. The study was flawed - so much so that Dr. Kellerman was called to testify before a Senate subcommittee to explain his findings. The result was that the CDC was defunded by $1 million. But the statistic lives on - it's STILL used by reporters and politicians regarding gun control.

So call me skeptical, but - has anyone here ever taken the time to look at the studies that claim that secondhand smoke is a killer? (_Annoying_ is one thing; _deadly_ is another entirely.) You know, the studies that politicians pushing smoking bans are using to make a case for it?

Personally, I've never seen one, but methinks I just might go have a look for myself.


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

TTgirl said:


> Well, I read through the entire thread, and I've really enjoyed the discussion in terms of both information and tone. You guys all should pat yourselves on the back.
> 
> One thing that hasn't popped up here, however, is that in order to sell an idea to the public, you need to have compelling evidence on your side, namely the type that will scare the bejeezus out of people who otherwise wouldn't have a dog in the fight.
> 
> ...


Food for thought.
Maybe coincidence, won't rule it out, but just ask my mother-in-law.
Her husband was a three to four pack a day smoker for ever and a day, in the NJ winters, confined to a small apartment.
He died of lung cancer.
She never smoked a cigarette in her life.
She was not a drinker.
Today, she has clogged arteries, respiratory problems, replaced heart valve, a pace maker, had cancer surgery and a few other things I can't recall.
She is one of I think 16 children.
The only one to ever develop these types of ailments.
Cancer does not run in her family.
Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not.

BTW, what did I do late this afternoon?
Smoked myself a Cuaba Exclusivo.
Go figure.


----------



## ResIpsa (Mar 8, 2006)

Hammerhead, I don't entirely disagree with you. and while I am an attorney and have studied Constitutional law, i am not a Constitutional lawyer. As far as your quotation is concerned if you can kindly refer me to just one case where the Supreme Court (the ultimate authority on what is or is not Constitutional) has found that any individual PERSON has any power or any authority to do anything, than Sir I will happily yield. The "people" the 10th refers to is not individual people


Hammerhead said:


> Partially true on your part - refer to the 10th amendment:
> 
> That statement reserves powers ultimately to THE PEOPLE, those same people mentioned in We The People. It's about OUR power and rights, *not *the State or Fed.


----------



## ResIpsa (Mar 8, 2006)

As TTgirl might say, I have no dog in this fight, and actually am against the smoking bans here in Ny and elsewhere. But I think the issue needs to be presented fairly. First of all, the origin of the anti-smoking is not people going to restaurants, or customers of anything anywhere. The genesis was rooted amongst the EMPLOYEES of the places where people smoke. In other words a captive audience. Now maybe your response to that is Hey, quit and get another job. you don't have to work there. But i doubt that would be your attitude if it was your job you were talking about and something was going on there that was potentially damaging to your health. The other point is that you blame all of this on "the government". "The government" is not some vast conspiracy out there to get you, it is made up of PEOPLE who you voted (or didn't vote) into office. Their job is to represent the voices of their constituents, that is what a representative government is all about. So when their constituents lobby them and whine and bitch and moan about things and the lawmakers pass laws (which is what they are there for) what EXACTLY is it that you are complaining about? That the govenmental process is working the way it was designed to? I am truly perplexed


Hammerhead said:


> The problem is that when people have choice, there's no harm done, period. When a nonsmoker walks into a smoking establishment, they can leave. That's a choice. No harm.
> 
> Answer this question. What RIGHT does that nonsmoker have to eat at this particular restaurant? I come up with: None. Zero. Zip. So, you can see that these "health issues" are just red herrings for extremist ideology to force more government control into your life.
> 
> ...


----------



## TTgirl (Sep 8, 2005)

Blueface said:


> Food for thought.
> Maybe coincidence, won't rule it out, but just ask my mother-in-law.
> Her husband was a three to four pack a day smoker for ever and a day, in the NJ winters, confined to a small apartment.
> He died of lung cancer.
> ...


It could very well be that being around a smoker on a long-term basis will eventually take a toll on your health. I certainly won't claim it doesn't. My Dad smoked from the time he was a teenager, and he died of a cancer that started as a spot on the lung and spread. That was 15 years ago. He was one of five children; one sister (not a smoker, nor did she live with one) also died of cancer. The others all have some form of coronary disease, and none of them smoke, nor do they live with smokers.

And then you have those people who are well into their 70's or 80's who have eaten lard biscuits smothered in bacon grease for breakfast every day and have smoked 3 packs a day for most of their lives.

I don't know that there is one end-all be-all explanation for anything. I think it's something that each of us has to look at and assess for ourselves in terms of risk. But I'd like it to be my decision, and I would like to know that somewhere I would have the freedom to exercise my decision - particularly on my own property or with my own business.

We do need to ask more questions about what we're told, though. No harm in that.


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

ResIpsa, glad to have an attorney on board.
Don't want to hijack this thread but boy do I have a ton of attorney jokes.

I just want to clarify that I too do not support smoking bans.

What I think I don't have a problem understanding is that what I want is not necessarily what others want or what is good for the majority.
So, if the majority gangs up on us smokers, we just need to go find ourselves the time to find more to join our fight or procreate them.
You raise a great point about work. Do we just up and quit our jobs because folks are free to smoke next to us? That is the reason so many employers voluntarily enacted non smoking policies. To provide a better environment for the majority, who doesn't smoke. Reality is we are the minority when it comes to smoking.


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

TTgirl said:


> But I'd like it to be my decision, and I would like to know that somewhere I would have the freedom to exercise my decision - particularly on my own property or with my own business.


As a fellow cigar smoker, I couldn't agree with you more.
As a parent of children, I would not like for your freedom to do that to be in the face of my children and risk their health.
Since I don't do that to them as their parent, certainly a stranger should not either.
Rather than smoking anywhere and me having to stay home and eat in, why not smoke friendly bars? Smoker restaurants? Smoking sections in open public places? Smoking only flights? etc.
Others suggest it be the other way around. We should have non-smoking restuarants with the majority being smoking. That would mean the minority gets the majority while the majority needs to go searching for the establishment that is non smoking. Something just not right with that.
I support our habit and feel we have the freedom to enjoy it but I cannot understand how we can be hell bent on inflicting our filthy, smelly habit on others.
I call it what it is. I enjoy cigars but they are nasty if you don't enjoy them.
They stain your teeth, stain your fingers, leave you smelling fowl, depreciate cars, stink up your home and tobacco is harmful to your health and that of others. How can we expect the majority (who are non smokers) to accept that? That is just not logical.


----------



## rjose (Jul 7, 2005)

ResIpsa said:


> The genesis was rooted amongst the EMPLOYEES of the places where people smoke. In other words a captive audience. Now maybe your response to that is Hey, quit and get another job. you don't have to work there. But i doubt that would be your attitude if it was your job you were talking about and something was going on there that was potentially damaging to your health.


I work for a chemical company, I am constantly around carcinogens and other potentialy harmful chemicals, as well as equipment that produces radiation. This is a reality of my job and the field I chose and I accept that. I don't expect my company to change their clientele to fit my personal health needs.

It would also be far easier for a waitress or bartender to find a safer job with similar pay that fits their skill set then it would be for me.

You're telling me you didn't know you would be around smoke when you became a bartender?


----------



## ResIpsa (Mar 8, 2006)

Well said. I have a thick skin , so let teh lawyer jokes fly. The point you raise is the right idea. Get people to join the fight. Contact your Senators and Congresspeople, make your VOICE HEARD. The lawmakers are not mind readers, and if all they hear is people want smoking bans, then guess what? They pass laws, that is what they are there for.


Blueface said:


> ResIpsa, glad to have an attorney on board.
> Don't want to hijack this thread but boy do I have a ton of attorney jokes.
> 
> I just want to clarify that I too do not support smoking bans.
> ...


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

rjose said:


> I work for a chemical company, I am constantly around carcinogens and other potentialy harmful chemicals, as well as equipment that produces radiation. This is a reality of my job and the field I chose and I accept that. I don't expect my company to change their clientele to fit my personal health needs.
> 
> It would also be far easier for a waitress or bartender to find a safer job with similar pay that fits their skill set then it would be for me.
> 
> You're telling me you didn't know you would be around smoke when you became a bartender?


Come on.
That is so, so different.
Those are risks associated with an industry to produce a product.
You know what those risks are and accept the pay in exchange for the elevated risks associated with that type of work.
Smoking in an office is not an expected risk associated with delivering the product most offices produce. That is an inflicted risk associated with the choice of a select individual(s).
The two are worlds apart.

P.S.
7 pages and 98 posts.
Did you have any idea it would end up here and we are far from done, I think.


----------



## ResIpsa (Mar 8, 2006)

Good point. But......two things. 1) you mistake my explanation of what occured with my approval of it 2)you are talking about apples and oranges. A chemical company deals with chemicals, it is what it does, it's very reason for being. That is not the case for a bar or restaurant. It doesn't exist to provide people with a place to smoke. It exists to provide food and drink to people. The smoking is a byproduct of the behavior of the customers. Do you think your employer would allow customers to come into the plant or your fellow employees for that matter, and start throwing lit matches around? Now THAT is the correct analogy


rjose said:


> I work for a chemical company, I am constantly around carcinogens and other potentialy harmful chemicals, as well as equipment that produces radiation. This is a reality of my job and the field I chose and I accept that. I don't expect my company to change their clientele to fit my personal health needs.
> 
> It would also be far easier for a waitress or bartender to find a safer job with similar pay that fits their skill set then it would be for me.
> 
> You're telling me you didn't know you would be around smoke when you became a bartender?


----------



## rjose (Jul 7, 2005)

Come on, a bartender knows that they are going to be around smoke.


----------



## ResIpsa (Mar 8, 2006)

I think you are missing the point. Smoking has nothing to do with being a bartender. That is behavior engaged in by the customers. Think of it like this: if smoking were banned in a bar would a bartender still be able to be a bartender. Of course, the smoking has nothing to do serving alcohol. On the other hand, if the chemicals were not in your plant would you still have a job? DUH NO, what would you do? the chemicals is what the place is all about. Should we also allow the customers to have bar fights because a bartender knows there are fights in a bar?


rjose said:


> Come on, a bartender knows that they are going to be around smoke.


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

ResIpsa said:


> Hammerhead, I don't entirely disagree with you. and while I am an attorney and have studied Constitutional law, i am not a Constitutional lawyer. As far as your quotation is concerned if you can kindly refer me to just one case where the Supreme Court (the ultimate authority on what is or is not Constitutional) has found that any individual PERSON has any power or any authority to do anything, than Sir I will happily yield. The "people" the 10th refers to is not individual people


I can't believe that I'd have this conversation with a lawyer.

Then again, maybe I can. 



> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


Our Declaration and Constitution are rooted in the Age Of Reason philosophers (have you read Locke?) and were written with the benefit of men whose intellect collected in one room can truly be considered the "Big Bang" of freedom. The statement above defines a government that is the guarantor and protector of our absolute rights, not the definer or taker of them.

Rights are things that exist outside the confines of an artifical contrivance that we call "government". My rights exist apart from whatever benefit polite (or politically correct) society may derive from them. What you're looking for is a reason to give rights back to us. I've been desperately trying to illustrate that they were never to be taken in the first place.

The paradigm of personal, individual rights which no individual, individuals or form of goverment can make a higher claim on, is the precept of everything that we cherish about freedom. It's what made America different than the rest of the planet, and if we don't keep on second-guessing ourselves and doubt this fact, then we'll be dragged down into the quagmire of failure along with other civilizations whose officials - elected or not - became corrupt and eventually totalitarian in nature.

As to the SCOTUS, it's exactly the decay we'e seen in the past few decades - as in looking overseas for interpretation of our Constitution - that we find ourselves inured to the notion that government has a higher claim on our rights than we do. If the Founders intended for rights to be granted to us by the Government, they would have had a longer and more list. These were sober men not given to flights of fancy or errors of omission. They said what they meant, and meant what they said. That's why we have only a handful of enumerated rights that do not define our entire existence, and the mistake we make is to assume that if it's not listed specifically in the Constitution because a few things ARE listed there, that we don't have a right to them when in fact we absolutely do.

As to the tidal wave of politically correct legislation motivated by ideology given inertia by biased press, junk science, hidden agendas, and ignorance, I'll discuss that another day.

Anyway, I'll leave it to a few of my other BOTLs who understand this as well or better than I, and can take up the fray here to explain it further. I'm winded, and need a break. I've debated some six or seven different individuals here on many facets of this issue, and I'm pretty tired.


----------



## rjose (Jul 7, 2005)

ResIpsa said:


> I think you are missing the point. Smoking has nothing to do with being a bartender. That is behavior engaged in by the customers. Think of it like this: if smoking were banned in a bar would a bartender still be able to be a bartender. Of course, the smoking has nothing to do serving alcohol. On the other hand, if the chemicals were not in your plant would you still have a job? DUH NO, what would you do? the chemicals is what the place is all about. Should we also allow the customers to have bar fights because a bartender knows there are fights in a bar?


Bars sell cigarettes and cigars too. And they allow and cater to smokers (they don't allow fighting). A prime example would be cigar shops that have a lounge or bar that can no longer allow smoking.

And my company could eliminate or refuse to cater to certain customers and get particularly dangerous chemicals out of my work place.

When a bartender chooses start a job at a bar they know allows smoking I don't think it's fair for them to expect it to become smoke free.


----------



## WetExit (Feb 6, 2006)

danisirish said:


> majority rules, unless we can figure out how to filibuster all the non-smokers


There it is.

"Those that do not participate in politics are destined to be controlled by those who do." -- Abraham Lincoln

We need to get some more stogie hounds in the Washington


----------



## ResIpsa (Mar 8, 2006)

I will try one last time........the rights the constitution refers to number three, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Did I miss the one about smoking? And please, don't tell me that is the pusuit of happiness, or that is about liberty. The ideas you quote are old argurments that have failed time and again on every level. I'm sorry, but you do not have the right to do whatever the hell you want, and to hell with everyone else. The error you make is that you believe YOUR rights outweigh everyone elses. When you make that mistake you are back to stone man law, i'll do what I want and if you don't like it i'll bash your head in. You want to smoke anywhere you want. Other people don't want you to. So tell me, what makes your rights so much more important than anybody elses. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GOVERNMENT. One of the oldest maxims in the law goes like this: Your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose. Get it? Because I give up


Hammerhead said:


> I can't believe that I'd have this conversation with a lawyer.
> 
> Then again, maybe I can.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ivory Tower (Nov 18, 2005)

MikeP said:


> The 4th Amendment does not limit my rights in anyway but limits the goverments ability to infringe on my rights.


Yeah and the limits are bounded by probable cause - do you get it, now?


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

ResIpsa said:


> I will try one last time........the rights the constitution refers to number three, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Did I miss the one about smoking?... So tell me, what makes your rights so much more important than anybody elses.


You haven't been paying attention. You must have missed my post #52.

My rights are so much more important because they're mine, not yours. And my smoking in my own home, place of business, or restaurant, or right to run those places as I see fit, is always more important than anybody else's idea on how to do it.

I have never, once, commented on the issue of smoking bans in TRULY public places that are taxpayer funded, though it does raise the question about why everyone's needs couldn't be accommodated by a small smoking area, since smokers pay MORE than their fair share of tax when they buy tobacco products.

The part you obviously missed were the fact that my comments have been aimed at private venues.

Yes, I do have a right to do as I wish, but my rights end where your rights begin. However, your rights do not begin in my restaurant, home or patio. But your view of government's role is flat out incorrect, and in my mind, evidences a fundamental lack of comprehension on your part of our founding documents, or original intent - especially since the quote above is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Then again you did make the disclaimer that you're a lawyer who hadn't studied the Constitution or our history - only the laws.


----------



## Ivory Tower (Nov 18, 2005)

Hammerhead said:


> I'd say you have a significant misunderstanding of the 10th Amendment, the Constitution and Original Intent. Regarding the 4th Amendment, that's the clause we refer to so as to establish our rights to privacy, but because you haven't substantiated any position or point but to quote the amendment, I don't know where you're going, so I can't respond.
> 
> Please do go look at Philosophy of Liberty and read Republic vs. Democracy. Then, come back and again answer the question: Are we trending toward MORE freedoms or LESS freedoms?


What's the misunderstanding? You declared that your rights trump all, did you not? They obviously don't, just given the power of the states in the 10th Amendment, which is not to protect your right to do jack. Sorry, you're wrong again. And yes, the other poster that mentioned that the 'people' does not refer to you as an individual was correct, but I assumed that would be over your head. Any substantiatin' on your part would be helpful, instead of just saying over and over and over that your rights trump all... blah, blah, blah - That would tire me out too. Now, the 4th Amendment example was to show you that the limits placed on the government to take your rights are not great. Do you get it now. How about your slippery slope argument - is that right too? No. In addition, that is not the kind of slippery slope we like around here. I will go look at Philosophy of Liberty, et al., thanks.


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

Ok, here's the substantiation. I hope we can agree that these amendments pertain to personal rights:

1 (Freedom of speech, religion, redress of grievance) Not a state right.
3 (Quartering of soldiers) Not a state right.
4 (Security in persons and papers) Not a state right.
5 (Self-incrimination) Not a state right.
6 (Right to speedy trial and to face accuser) Not a state right.,
7 (Trial by Jury) Not a state right.
8 (Cruel and unusual punishment) Not a state right.

Out of 10 of the original "Bill Of Rights", we have 7 that solidly and without a doubt pertain to preservation and defense of personal, individual rights. I have intentionally left out the 2nd Amendment, because that's been discussed ad nauseum in other threads, and the others which have been eloquently elaborated on by MikeP in post #27.

So why is it incomprehensible to fathom that all of the Bill of Rights and our Constitution in general, are about the business of protecting our personal rights to freedom of choice, which includes smoking?

What I think you guys are not getting is a fundamental truth about that Original Intent. When our Founders set out to architecht a new government, their paradigm was not to create a government that would let us do things, but what we would let the government do. Why bother with the former - they already had that in the form of King George.

My frame of reference is a reasonably broad and deep understanding of not just the Constitution, but of the _mindset _of our Founders through their memoirs, correspondence and respective positions. This comes from not just a passing or cursory experience in 2nd Amendment advocacy, which forces one to be very crisp on Original Intent.

Let me know what you think of Philosophy of Liberty, and please do look at the other links to Republic vs. Democracy.

(LOL!!!... and here just a few days ago I was thinking to myself "gee... it's been really quiet on Club Stogie lately!")


----------



## Ivory Tower (Nov 18, 2005)

Ivory Tower said:


> I will go look at Philosophy of Liberty, et al., thanks.


I went to a website by the Internation Society for Individual Liberty and watched an introduction to the Philosophy of Liberty. I hope that's not what you base your understanding of the Constitution on. It's somewhat illogical, just going in circles, assuming things that are not fact, etc. Sorry, I think it had some nice metaphysical relation to life in general, but thought it was somewhat obvious. Worrying about most of the topics in that introduction I watched would be like worrying about the next earthquake - it's pointless. And I don't think it's necessarily bad for everyone to watch this, I just think it was really oversimplified. However, our country's laws, good and bad, are a dynamic system, and yes you can change them as the introduction suggests. Fortunately, no one is taking our rights away by banning smoking in restaurants and other public places, and we can still enjoy stogies. If doom overcomes us as cigar smokers, I think we can probably work out a solution if we want. I will look at the other sites, too, I enjoy your point of view - no offense.


----------



## TTgirl (Sep 8, 2005)

ResIpsa said:


> As TTgirl might say, I have no dog in this fight, and actually am against the smoking bans here in Ny and elsewhere. But I think the issue needs to be presented fairly. First of all, the origin of the anti-smoking is not people going to restaurants, or customers of anything anywhere. The genesis was rooted amongst the EMPLOYEES of the places where people smoke. In other words a captive audience. Now maybe your response to that is Hey, quit and get another job. you don't have to work there. But i doubt that would be your attitude if it was your job you were talking about and something was going on there that was potentially damaging to your health.


OK, the key word here is *potentially*.

So you're telling me that it's OK - no, I'm sorry, that it's our _responsibility_ - to BAN people from engaging in an activity because it is *potentially *damaging to the health of others?

I dunno, there's a awful lot of wiggle room there. How "potentially" damaging does something have to be, do you think, before it qualifies for banning?



ResIpsa said:


> The other point is that you blame all of this on "the government". "The government" is not some vast conspiracy out there to get you, it is made up of PEOPLE who you voted (or didn't vote) into office.


Why do people vote for who they vote for?



ResIpsa said:


> Their job is to represent the voices of their constituents, that is what a representative government is all about. So when their constituents lobby them and whine and bitch and moan about things and the lawmakers pass laws (which is what they are there for) what EXACTLY is it that you are complaining about? That the govenmental process is working the way it was designed to? I am truly perplexed


It works as long as we're all being honest. Go back to my Kellerman example - here was a guy who fudged stats to promote an agenda.

Would you rather make a decision based on whole truths or half-truths?

If we're being less than honest, who wins?


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

Just curious.
If we have the right to chain smoke and chase people out of restaurants, why can't we all just strip naked and have sex in the street?
Should be a right of mine to do that if I wish if one subsribes to some of the ideas conveyed on this thread.
Reason I can't is that the majority has decided for me that is not something our society wishes to witness ( not to mention if you ask my wife she will tell you the show is just not worth it, but I did say not to mention ).
If the majority decides that we cannot smoke in certain places, how is that any different than my sex in the streets example?

To address TTGirl's comments on "potential", you can't fire a gun in the street legally just because you feel like it. The reason is there is a potential you may in fact harm someone. Do we have to wait for people to run out and kill a ton of folks before we can then determine firing a gun in the streets for no cause is proven to be potentially harmful? Lets say whatever we want but we have got to agree that this stuff we puff is in fact dangerous, not potentially. It is dangerous and it does kill. If you are breathing it and it can harm you, how can we not conclude someone next to you, who is also breathing it will also be harmed. To ellude that is to put blinders on and ignore the facts.


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

Ivory Tower said:


> ...watched an introduction to the Philosophy of Liberty. I hope that's not what you base your understanding of the Constitution on. It's somewhat illogical, just going in circles, assuming things that are not fact, etc.


Did you watch the INTRODUCTION, or did you watch the whole thing? If not, it might explain why you found it to be not linear.

In either case, it's the paradigm that the Founders had in mind when they founded the nation and wrote the Constitution, though not the sole beginning and end. They also relied on the Bible, historical analysis, the Age Of Reason philosophers, and Masonic philosophy and law, which I also happen to have some firsthand experience with.

So, when you say "assuming things that are not fact", I beg to differ.

Question to answer at your own leisure, what does freedom mean? What does the concept of Liberty mean, and in what ways do you perceive America to be unique among the history of failed civilizations throughout time? Or, in your mind, are we no better or worse, and this one form of government is as good as any?



TTgirl said:


> Would you rather make a decision based on whole truths or half-truths?


There's a line in the movie "Lawrence of Arabia" that I always remember. *"A man who tells lies is merely concealing the truth... a man who tells half lies forgot where he put it."*


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

Blueface said:


> Just curious.
> If we have the right to chain smoke and chase people out of restaurants, why can't we all just strip naked and have sex in the street?
> Should be a right of mine to do that if I wish if one subsribes to some of the ideas conveyed on this thread.


Because the streets are TRULY public, paid for by our collective tax dollars, and you also get to have a say in the management of them. Therefore, when "you" (in the collective sense) decide that it is inappropriate to have sex in a TRULY public area, the majority rules because we all have an equal right to a say in the management of the public property in which we are all stakeholders.

I think this is where you're not understanding the difference. Public vs. Private. A restaurant is open TO the public but is a PRIVATE business, just as my home is open TO you, but not to be controlled or legislated BY you.


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

Hammerhead said:


> Because the streets are TRULY public, paid for by our collective tax dollars, and you also get to have a say in the management of them. Therefore, when "you" (in the collective sense) decide that it is inappropriate to have sex in a TRULY public area, the majority rules because we all have an equal right to a say in the management of the public property in which we are all stakeholders.
> 
> I think this is where you're not understanding the difference. Public vs. Private. A restaurant is open TO the public but is a PRIVATE business, just as my home is open TO you, but not to be controlled or legislated BY you.


OK, lets re-phrase it because I think I see checkmate coming.
Do I have the right to walk into a crowded nice restaurant, say Ruth's Chris, get naked, throw my wife on the table and have wild sex with her? and not have any legal ramifications?
(OK, make that a girl that I pick up as my wife won't want to have wild sex, period.)
(Heck, who am I kidding. I won't be able to pick up a girl to throw on a table but lets make believe).


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

Blueface said:


> OK, lets re-phrase it because I think I see checkmate coming.
> Do I have the right to walk into a crowded nice restaurant, say Ruth's Chris, get naked, throw my wife on the table and have wild sex with her? and not have any legal ramifications?
> (OK, make that a girl that I pick up as my wife won't want to have wild sex, period.)
> (Heck, who am I kidding. I won't be able to pick up a girl to throw on a table but lets make believe).


Yes. And the restaurant owner has a right to throw your ass out on the street and decide for himself if he wants to press charges.

You see, in this case, because your sex act occurred on private property, it is a civil matter, not falling under the statutes, because it did not occur on PUBLIC property.

See?

Private... not involving taxpayer dollars, where the owner decides what to do.
Public... paid for by taxpayer dollars where we all decide what to do.

But just because I'm a helluva guy, I won't press charges if you let me videotape the whole thing. For purely scientific research, of course. 

You're in checkmate, methinks.


----------



## TTgirl (Sep 8, 2005)

Blueface said:


> Just curious.
> If we have the right to chain smoke and chase people out of restaurants, why can't we all just strip naked and have sex in the street?
> Should be a right of mine to do that if I wish if one subsribes to some of the ideas conveyed on this thread.
> Reason I can't is that the majority has decided for me that is not something our society wishes to witness ( not to mention if you ask my wife she will tell you the show is just not worth it, but I did say not to mention ).
> ...


Let me be clear here - I'm not advocating being able to light up anywhere I damn well please. I wouldn't walk into your home and smoke if you asked me not to, and I'm not going to insist on being able to smoke in any business that has chosen to be a non-smoking business.

Blue, I agree with what you said about having establishments that cater exclusively to smokers, but what these bans are doing are taking away any choice we might have in the matter, whether we own a business or want to patronize one. That just doesn't sit well with me at all.


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

Hammerhead said:


> Yes. And the restaurant owner has a right to throw your ass out on the street and decide for himself if he wants to press charges.
> 
> You see, in this case, because your sex act occurred on private property, it is a civil matter, not falling under the statutes, because it did not occur on PUBLIC property.
> 
> ...


Totally disagree with you there. You cannot possibly be serious with that statement.
We need law enforcement and lawyers to chime in on this analogy.
That is not a civil matter.
Note I said crowed.
Did you consider minors? If so, that is called leud and lascivioius behavior and qualifies you to be designated as a sexual predator, irregardless of where on this planet you are, even in the privacy of your own home (example: Michael Jackson).
If that is so legal, how come we don't have a happy hour with a sideshow like that on a regular basis?

P.S.
Punching out for the night.
Long day ahead tomorrow with three spinal injections awaiting me.


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

TTgirl said:


> Let me be clear here - I'm not advocating being able to light up anywhere I damn well please. I wouldn't walk into your home and smoke if you asked me not to, and I'm not going to insist on being able to smoke in any business that has chosen to be a non-smoking business.
> 
> Blue, I agree with what you said about having establishments that cater exclusively to smokers, but what these bans are doing are taking away any choice we might have in the matter, whether we own a business or want to patronize one. That just doesn't sit well with me at all.


Totally agree with you.
I feel the same, believe it or not. I Just think I can understand why they are trying to do that. For some reason, I can put myself in their shoes on this one. Not something I often do.


----------



## ResIpsa (Mar 8, 2006)

Since you have decided to be rude, so shall I:

1) You mistake something being important to YOU for something being important. A common mistake for, oh say a two year old. Contrary to what you may believe, it's not all about you, there are others on the planet. According to your logic, the person who wants smoking banned rights are more important because they are THEIRS not yours. Its a circular argument where everyones rights are more important because they belong to them, which fails to address the issue for society.

2) ALL property is publicly funded, from the land your business or restaurant sits on, to the road it rests on, to the police that respond to the robbery there or the firemen who repond to the fire there. YOU ARE NOT ALONE ON THIS PLANET. You do not have a business because you have the RIGHT to have one, you have it because you are ALLOWED to have one.

3) You think because you refer people to some websites written by some whack jobs that this means you and your ilk have some kind of divine knowledge of the constitution and the meaning of this country. Well I can tell you first hand, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. Your logic and arguments have been discounted by anyone with any real knowledge of the constitution time and again. This type of thinking ranks right up there with wacks from Ruby Ridge and the Waco compound. Jail cells are filled with people with mind sets like yours, such as Hey man, the federal income tax is UNCONSTITUTIONAL so I don't have to pay it. I have sat with several people who wanted me to appeal their convictions for tax fraud and shook my head as they went off to jail with their assine notions. Well, you have no legal knowledge, you have no legal training or background of any kind so your opinion as to what is or is not constitutional doesn't mean a whole lot. You quote from the Constitution and Declaration, but sorely lack the background and/or training to interpret them correctly. I have tried to open your eyes, but sadly i have seen the end of the road for those with your mindset far too often, a jail cell most frequently awaits. I hope for your sake you smarten up before it is too late.


Hammerhead said:


> You haven't been paying attention. You must have missed my post #52.
> 
> My rights are so much more important because they're mine, not yours. And my smoking in my own home, place of business, or restaurant, or right to run those places as I see fit, is always more important than anybody else's idea on how to do it.
> 
> ...


----------



## ResIpsa (Mar 8, 2006)

Once again, you show a lack of understanding of basic legal principles. What is described is NOT a civil matter, it is a criminal matter falling under any number of statutes depending on the state. We can begin with indecent exposure and go from there.Children present? Hey lets toss in engaging in an act injurious to a minor. You are in a PUBLIC place not a private one, that is why these places are referred to in the law as places of public accommodaton. Anyone who was present in that restaurant would have the right to press charges, and the Restaurant owner has no special standing. I'm sorry, but you have a poor understanding of legal issues, you present your personal opinions as if they are facts or the law and they simply are not.


Hammerhead said:


> Yes. And the restaurant owner has a right to throw your ass out on the street and decide for himself if he wants to press charges.
> 
> You see, in this case, because your sex act occurred on private property, it is a civil matter, not falling under the statutes, because it did not occur on PUBLIC property.
> 
> ...


----------



## ResIpsa (Mar 8, 2006)

1)I chose potentially, because you chose to take the position that there may not be any proof that second hand smoke is harmful.

2) Once the person is in office it's a little late to decide you made an error in judgement by voting for them. Next time around, vote for someone else, not quite sure what your point is. That is the system we have. I see no way to have some kind of litmus test as to whether or not a politician is lying BEFORE they take office. Don't they usually wait until AFTER they take office to do that


TTgirl said:


> OK, the key word here is *potentially*.
> 
> So you're telling me that it's OK - no, I'm sorry, that it's our _responsibility_ - to BAN people from engaging in an activity because it is *potentially *damaging to the health of others?
> 
> ...


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

Blueface said:


> Totally disagree with you there. You cannot possibly be serious with that statement.
> We need law enforcement and lawyers to chime in on this analogy.
> That is not a civil matter.
> Note I said crowed.
> ...


Sounds like the BOTL admitted to the bar agrees with me.
As I stated above, could be the reason why we don't have happy hour sex on tables at restaurants. Just food, alcohol and tobacco, where allowed.


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

ResIpsa said:


> Since you have decided to be rude, so shall I:
> 
> 1) You mistake something being important to YOU for something being important. A common mistake for, oh say a two year old.
> 
> ...


I think the tone of our conversation started taking a bender at your post #105, and my subsequent post was 'flip' in response, since that was the direction you were going.

Anyway;

1) Again you've been listening, but not hearing. I think you've not read my other posts, or you didn't take my meaning. I won't comment on your other jibes.

2) You better hope eminent domain doesn't target your home. Then we'll see just how "public" you think the public's property is.

3) I consider myself to be in good company with other "whack jobs" who resist the kind of draconian government intrusions and legislations from the bench that you dismiss so easily.

Finally, you say:



ResIpsa said:


> Anyone who was present in that restaurant would have the right to press charges, and the Restaurant owner has no special standing


Leaving out my small oversight of not including the other patrons, why would anyone NEED to press charges if, according to you, the act occurred on public property. Let's move that act to a park bench. Does that still require someone to press charges?

So, can we agree that NOT all property is public?

You also acknowledge that the laws vary from state to state. That would confirm the language in Amendment 10 to include the State. But we've been entirely skimming over the final, and most important component of the 10th amendment - "reserved to the States, or the people, respectively". Funny how we just steamrolled past that one.

What I think is happening here is that you're not distinguishing for the rest of the readers here the legal differentiation between a civil/administrative crime and a statutory/tortious crime.

I won't get into further commentary on how black robed oligarchs and power hungry politicos are redefining the lines between private and public and whittling away our freedoms by incremental machinations that bind the nation through the good faith clause in the Constitution and are leading to the destruction of liberty in America.

So, at the end of the line if I find myself in a jail cell, I'd be in good company with other like-minded persons "of my ilk" as you say, who recognize that the system has exceeded its authority and taken a life of its own which is exactly what our Founders wished to avoid.

And that, too, is in the Constitution and encompassed by Original Intent.


----------



## ResIpsa (Mar 8, 2006)

Believe it or not I am trying to help you understand. This is a country founded on laws, and if you have the respect for the Constitution that you claim to have you should realize it is a law, the supreme law of the land, but a law. And as a law it needs to be interpreted from time to time. And to that end the Supreme Court was created by it to be the final arbiter of what is or is not constitutional. My _opinion_, your _opinion, is completely irrelevant since we don't sit on the SCOTUS. A suggestion for you, rather than reading the Constitution, writings of people not on the bench who have no authority, etc. try reading the decisions of the SCOTUS over the centuries to get a better understanding of how we wound up where we are. The law is a living being, constantly changing, constantly evolving. For example, if Roe v. Wade had been decided in the 19th century, you probably would have had a different result, right or wrong and I take no position on the issue.

The other thing to keep in mind is that there is no such thing as "the government" This country was founded on the principle that it would be "of the people, by the people and for the people". That is was a representative government is all about. The "government" you complain about is YOU. Is is your neighbor, your mother, friends, etc. Your anti-government stance would make a lot more sense if we lived under a monarchy or a dictatorship where things are done from on high and you have no input. You don't like what your state is doing? Run for office. Vote someone else into office. Your beef seems to be with the very way our country is set up.

As to your comment as to why charges need to be pressed, my answer simply is because that is the way the system works. Unless a police officer actually sees a crime take place, charges must always be pressed by an aggrieved party. Someone can rob my house and unless I choose to press charges, nothing is going to happen. Criminal law is a complaint driven system.
to continue along the same lines, TORTS are civil wrongs, not criminal ones. There is no such thing as a criminal tort, nor is there any such thing as an administrative/civil crime. A civil action is almost the opposite of a crime. When a crime is committed the victim is not technically speaking me, it is the people. That is why criminal complaints are titled "the People of the State of .....vs. Joe Smith. A civil action on the contrary is a personal cause of action which vests in the victim. there are some things that are both crimes and torts. Example: assault is a crime in most places. It is also a tort. (civil wrong). I can press criminal charges, I can sue you civillaly or I can do both, all at my option.

I do respect your right to your opinion, I just believe you are getting your information from some very wrong sources. Peace?:u :u



Hammerhead said:



I think the tone of our conversation started taking a bender at your post #105, and my subsequent post was 'flip' in response, since that was the direction you were going.

Anyway;

1) Again you've been listening, but not hearing. I think you've not read my other posts, or you didn't take my meaning. I won't comment on your other jibes.

2) You better hope eminent domain doesn't target your home. Then we'll see just how "public" you think the public's property is.

3) I consider myself to be in good company with other "whack jobs" who resist the kind of draconian government intrusions and legislations from the bench that you dismiss so easily.

Finally, you say:

Leaving out my small oversight of not including the other patrons, why would anyone NEED to press charges if, according to you, the act occurred on public property. Let's move that act to a park bench. Does that still require someone to press charges?

So, can we agree that NOT all property is public?

You also acknowledge that the laws vary from state to state. That would confirm the language in Amendment 10 to include the State. But we've been entirely skimming over the final, and most important component of the 10th amendment - "reserved to the States, or the people, respectively". Funny how we just steamrolled past that one.

What I think is happening here is that you're not distinguishing for the rest of the readers here the legal differentiation between a civil/administrative crime and a statutory/tortious crime.

I won't get into further commentary on how black robed oligarchs and power hungry politicos are redefining the lines between private and public and whittling away our freedoms by incremental machinations that bind the nation through the good faith clause in the Constitution and are leading to the destruction of liberty in America.

So, at the end of the line if I find myself in a jail cell, I'd be in good company with other like-minded persons "of my ilk" as you say, who recognize that the system has exceeded its authority and taken a life of its own which is exactly what our Founders wished to avoid.

And that, too, is in the Constitution and encompassed by Original Intent.

Click to expand...

_


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

ResIpsa said:


> Believe it or not I am trying to help you understand. This is a country founded on laws, and if you have the respect for the Constitution that you claim to have you should realize it is a law, the supreme law of the land, but a law. And as a law it needs to be interpreted from time to time. And to that end the Supreme Court was created by it to be the final arbiter of what is or is not constitutional. My _opinion_, your _opinion, is completely irrelevant since we don't sit on the SCOTUS. A suggestion for you, rather than reading the Constitution, writings of people not on the bench who have no authority, etc. try reading the decisions of the SCOTUS over the centuries to get a better understanding of how we wound up where we are. The law is a living being, constantly changing, constantly evolving. For example, if Roe v. Wade had been decided in the 19th century, you probably would have had a different result, right or wrong and I take no position on the issue.
> 
> The other thing to keep in mind is that there is no such thing as "the government" This country was founded on the principle that it would be "of the people, by the people and for the people". That is was a representative government is all about. The "government" you complain about is YOU. Is is your neighbor, your mother, friends, etc. Your anti-government stance would make a lot more sense if we lived under a monarchy or a dictatorship where things are done from on high and you have no input. You don't like what your state is doing? Run for office. Vote someone else into office. Your beef seems to be with the very way our country is set up.
> 
> ...


_

Extremely well said and totally accurate._


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

ResIpsa said:


> And as a law it needs to be interpreted from time to time. And to that end the Supreme Court was created by it to be the final arbiter of what is or is not constitutional....
> *Exactly, and this is why there has been such a flap in recent times about the justices on the SCOTUS who have been 'legislating from the bench' and exceeding their Constitutional authority, especially when they look to practices in Europe or overseas for their 'decisions'.*
> 
> The law is a living being, constantly changing, constantly evolving. For example, if Roe v. Wade had been decided in the 19th century, you probably would have had a different result, right or wrong and I take no position on the issue.
> ...


So now to bring this back to the issue at hand, which is the Constitutionality question, the trend that has been established which we all are alarmed by, and which is being promulgated by this recent witch hunt of anti-smoking legislation, is who owns your life and property.

I'll ask the question again that I asked in (I think...) another thread: "Do you believe we're trending in America toward _more _liberty, or _less_?" If your answer is the latter, then it requires some soul-searching to see how we each are complicit in allowing the government to operate as it does.

As to the transgressions of personal rights being dismissed by the collectivism argument that "we the people" elected these asshats, what we're not accounting for is that the Constitution is supposed to protect minority rights, which is why we're a Republic and not a Democracy.

Granted, this is all theoretical, but the fact that bad decisions and precedents have been set in the past which have repurcussions today don't validate the wrongs that are being done.



> Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.
> _- Thomas Paine_


----------



## 12stones (Jan 6, 2006)

ResIpsa said:


> Believe it or not I am trying to help you understand. This is a country founded on laws, and if you have the respect for the Constitution that you claim to have you should realize it is a law, the supreme law of the land, but a law. And as a law it needs to be interpreted from time to time. And to that end the Supreme Court was created by it to be the final arbiter of what is or is not constitutional. My _opinion_, your _opinion, is completely irrelevant since we don't sit on the SCOTUS. A suggestion for you, rather than reading the Constitution, writings of people not on the bench who have no authority, etc. try reading the decisions of the SCOTUS over the centuries to get a better understanding of how we wound up where we are. The law is a living being, constantly changing, constantly evolving. For example, if Roe v. Wade had been decided in the 19th century, you probably would have had a different result, right or wrong and I take no position on the issue. _


_

This is a fine point, but the problem arises when the SCOTUS begins to define the law through their rulings in their determination of an interpretation.



ResIpsa said:



The other thing to keep in mind is that there is no such thing as "the government" This country was founded on the principle that it would be "of the people, by the people and for the people". That is was a representative government is all about. The "government" you complain about is YOU. Is is your neighbor, your mother, friends, etc. Your anti-government stance would make a lot more sense if we lived under a monarchy or a dictatorship where things are done from on high and you have no input. You don't like what your state is doing? Run for office. Vote someone else into office. Your beef seems to be with the very way our country is set up.

Click to expand...

This is great in theory but no longer exists in reality. The power of incumbency multiplied by the laziness of Americans who don't care or don't know any better = a failing system.



ResIpsa said:



As to your comment as to why charges need to be pressed, my answer simply is because that is the way the system works. Unless a police officer actually sees a crime take place, charges must always be pressed by an aggrieved party. Someone can rob my house and unless I choose to press charges, nothing is going to happen. Criminal law is a complaint driven system.
to continue along the same lines, TORTS are civil wrongs, not criminal ones. There is no such thing as a criminal tort, nor is there any such thing as an administrative/civil crime. A civil action is almost the opposite of a crime. When a crime is committed the victim is not technically speaking me, it is the people. That is why criminal complaints are titled "the People of the State of .....vs. Joe Smith. A civil action on the contrary is a personal cause of action which vests in the victim. there are some things that are both crimes and torts. Example: assault is a crime in most places. It is also a tort. (civil wrong). I can press criminal charges, I can sue you civillaly or I can do both, all at my option.

I do respect your right to your opinion, I just believe you are getting your information from some very wrong sources. Peace?:u :u

Click to expand...

The problem here is the definition of civil wrong. I may define a civil wrong differently than you so the law becomes the definition. Correct? Now, who defines the law? We're back in the political arena and back to the discussion of rights...

Good points on both sides._


----------



## stig (Mar 9, 2006)

Mad Dog Rocket said:


> I cannot grant agreement on your last sentiment, but in this we are definitely agreed.


By public, I mean outdoors. No need for stogie or cigarettes in the malls or movie theaters.


----------



## croatan (Mar 23, 2005)

ResIpsa said:


> A suggestion for you, rather than reading the Constitution, writings of people not on the bench who have no authority, etc. try reading the decisions of the SCOTUS over the centuries to get a better understanding of how we wound up where we are.


Personally, I think you need both. Nothing should be read in a vacuum. Opinions should be read in historical (both legal and current event-wise) context and commentators' views can also help one grasp the ebbs and flows of Supreme Court doctrine. How well would you know the law if your Con Law professor had said: "go read the US Reports and then tell me what you learned"?

You're saying what the current law is--which is fine, I did the same thing many pages ago. The way I read it, Hammerhead is saying what he thinks the current law should be.



> Unless a police officer actually sees a crime take place, charges must always be pressed by an aggrieved party.


I don't do criminal law, but I'm fairly certain that, in Texas at least, a complaining witness is not necessary in every case--it makes it hard to win, though.


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

Hammerhead said:


> As to the transgressions of personal rights being dismissed by the collectivism argument that "we the people" elected these asshats, what we're not accounting for is that the Constitution is supposed to protect minority rights, which is why we're a Republic and not a Democracy.
> .


Sigh. Cause we are in no way a representative democracy. And we certainly show no signs of liberal democracy  This has gone way off topic guys. I like cigars. Most people don't, there will come a time when every state enacts smoking laws similar to NYC. And I doubt there will be any revolution in our system any time soon.


----------



## croatan (Mar 23, 2005)

carbonbased_al said:


> I like cigars. Most people don't, there will come a time when every state enacts smoking laws similar to NYC. And I doubt there will be any revolution in our system any time soon.


And, unfortunately, I think you are exactly right, Joe.

Oh well, y'all are welcome to come smoke at my house any time.


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

carbonbased_al said:


> Sigh. Cause we are in no way a representative democracy. And we certainly show no signs of liberal democracy  This has gone way off topic guys. I like cigars. Most people don't, there will come a time when every state enacts smoking laws similar to NYC. And I doubt there will be any revolution in our system any time soon.


Joe,
You are right.
I think the point of this discussion has evolved to one of what rights do I have to go and do as I please, because that is the way I see it, because it is my constitutional rights. At least that is a big part of what I have read on this thread.

There is no concievable way a society can function in that manner. We will all see diffeent shades of the same color. What keeps us in check is that a body that we elect to make the laws decides what the right shade should be called, based on the majority. Then, a body is in place to interpret those laws as they see them to have been intended. Note an emphasis on as "they see them". When you were a young child and you went to Disneyworld with your parents, did you have any rights to go off and do what you wanted or did your parents ask what exactly it was the family wished to do and then you all went together on whatever you landed on as a family? This stuff called majority rules is inherrent in our upbringing. Why would we expect to run around and do as we please as adults without answering to laws enacted as result of the majority?

So, if the majority says you can't smoke in restaurants, it is a tough argument to make that it is your right to do as you wish, irregardless of what the majority has decided. I think what some of us are trying to say is that the way around that is to become the majority and change it to your way and screw the minority. Lets all recall what happened with prohibition. The majority went on drinking and they couldn't stop it from happening. Some may want to argue the constitutionality point all they want but most would believe it is a losing cause. If they ultimately make smoking illegal all over, like prohibition, we will just have to resort to speakeasys or to enable change via masses.

P.S.
So, did we land on that it is my constitutional right to walk into a croweded Ruth's Chris and in front of all, including children, drop my pants and screw my wife on a table and have no fear of any legal issues?
I think I certainly can do it but it will be a tough argument in court to tell the judge it was my constitutional right. Will also be tough to get my mugshot taken off the predator websites.


----------



## 12stones (Jan 6, 2006)

croatan said:


> Oh well, y'all are welcome to come smoke at my house any time.


For now. Let's hope Kinky gets in so he'll guarantee it.


----------



## croatan (Mar 23, 2005)

12stones said:


> For now. Let's hope Kinky gets in so he'll guarantee it.


He ain't Kinky. He's my Governor.


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

croatan said:


> And, unfortunately, I think you are exactly right, Joe.
> 
> Oh well, y'all are welcome to come smoke at my house any time.


Yes, until according to some, that becomes illegal, too, because "the majority" have decided that your home is "public domain" because some other justification is made to tell you what you can and can't personally do.

And THAT'S what this thread has been all about, from word go.

What I think we ought to be looking at here is not what is, but what was intended and should be.



> ...experience hath shewn that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time and by slow operation, perverted it into tyranny...
> _- Thomas Jefferson_


----------



## ky toker (Jun 2, 2005)

Long read, good debate.

My post is going to be short. There is one point I can not get passed so I need not debate anything else.

1) When a person opens a business it is a private business which they offer services to the public. But that doesn't make it a public dwelling. When you impose your will on that business owner you are walking on their *rights* to inforce not your own rights, but your wants.


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

Hammerhead said:


> Yes, until according to some, that becomes illegal, too, because "the majority" have decided that your home is "public domain" because some other justification is made to tell you what you can and can't personally do.


No doubt that may very well happen.
Do I agree with it?
Heck no!!!
However, worrying about it getting to that point does not justify stating it is our right to do as we wish.
Worry about it certainly.
Enact change via those you elect.
As a very, very extreme example, you just can't find it to be your constitutional right to blow up NYC because you fear another terrorist attack.


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

carbonbased_al said:


> Sigh. Cause we are in no way a representative democracy. And we certainly show no signs of liberal democracy


At least not in New Jersey, that much is sure. If your experience is limited to what happens here, then I can understand why you say this.

So, then, which would you rather live in?


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

Blueface said:


> No doubt that may very well happen.
> Do I agree with it?
> Heck no!!!
> However, worrying about it getting to that point does not justify stating it is our right to do as we wish.
> ...


Not following your thoughts here, but let me leave it at this. We end up where we began. With the idea of Rights.

Main Entry: natural rights 
Part of Speech: noun 
Definition: a political theory that individuals have basic rights given to them by nature or God that no individual or government can deny

If we as a nation do not start recognizing and cherishing the 1st Principles that our Founders intended, if we do not stop genuflecting to judges and legislators who succumb to political correctness, or extremist ideology to define for us what our liberty is, then the notion of Freedom that we refer to so easily all the time will be gone, and we'll have the very tyrrany that our Founders feared.



> "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as they are injurious to others."
> *- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1781-1785).*


A right lost to one, is a right lost to all.


----------



## ResIpsa (Mar 8, 2006)

I agree to a certain extent depending on how well the decision was written. Can say this about all court decisions. Hey, is that part of the holding, or is it dicta?


croatan said:


> Personally, I think you need both. Nothing should be read in a vacuum. Opinions should be read in historical (both legal and current event-wise) context and commentators' views can also help one grasp the ebbs and flows of Supreme Court doctrine. How well would you know the law if your Con Law professor had said: "go read the US Reports and then tell me what you learned"?.


Sure, but I would argue counselor that the way you change current law is by voting people into office who agree with your interpretation of things.


croatan said:


> You're saying what the current law is--which is fine, I did the same thing many pages ago. The way I read it, Hammerhead is saying what he thinks the current law should be.


As a New Yorker I defer to you Sir on matters of Texas law. But I am curious......With a couple of exceptions that come to mind, without a complaining witness how would anyone know a crime had been committed? Example: my house is robbed. I don't report it. The police don't witness it. How would anyone know a crime occured.? If my neighbor saw it happen he/she could report it, but then they become the complaining witness, do they not? Of course in cases of arson, murder, etc. where you have a burned building or a dead body, i can see your point.


croatan said:


> I don't do criminal law, but I'm fairly certain that, in Texas at least, a complaining witness is not necessary in every case--it makes it hard to win, though.


----------



## ResIpsa (Mar 8, 2006)

But you have no unfettered "right" to open a business. It has long been established, and in fact is embedded in the Constitution itself (See amongst other things the Commerce Clause) that the Feds or States have the right to regulate business activities. I open a restaurant. I must comply with fire codes, health and safety codes, and so on and so on and so one (lots of codes Additionally you are simply incorrect as to it being a "public dwelling" See my previous post re: places of public accommodation. Any business open to the public is, by law, a place of public accommodation, not a private business. There is no such thing as a "private business" since the purpose of all business is to deal in some manner with the public at large.


ky toker said:


> Long read, good debate.
> 
> My post is going to be short. There is one point I can not get passed so I need not debate anything else.
> 
> 1) When a person opens a business it is a private business which they offer services to the public. But that doesn't make it a public dwelling. When you impose your will on that business owner you are walking on their *rights* to inforce not your own rights, but your wants.


----------



## croatan (Mar 23, 2005)

ResIpsa said:


> Sure, but I would argue counselor that the way you change current law is by voting people into office who agree with your interpretation of things


Couldn't agree more.



ResIpsa said:


> Of course in cases of arson, murder, etc. where you have a burned building or a dead body, i can see your point.


Yeah, that's basically what I was talking about. Also, cases where witnesses or victims are too afraid to testify.


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

Hammerhead said:


> Not following your thoughts here, but let me leave it at this. We end up where we began. With the idea of Rights.
> 
> Main Entry: natural rights
> Part of Speech: noun
> ...


Well said.
My statement was pretty clear.
Do you have a constitutional right to go blow up NYC because you fear it will someday be attacked and it is your call to spare it that agony?
I truly fail to see what part of what you just captioned here states you have the right to do as you wish and impose your harmful smoke on someone else in a restaurant or they can just pick up an leave and go eat in instead? Your caption basically says, don't sit back and watch things happen that you don't agree with as you will eventually have nothing. Agree. How does that infer you can do as you please because it is your right?

P.S.
Do you have a right to your opinion and differ from me? Certainly. However, what makes you think what you perceive as your right is in fact your right?


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

ResIpsa said:


> But you have no unfettered "right" to open a business. It has long been established, and in fact is embedded in the Constitution itself (See amongst other things the Commerce Clause) that the Feds or States have the right to regulate business activities. I open a restaurant. I must comply with fire codes, health and safety codes, and so on and so on and so one (lots of codes Additionally you are simply incorrect as to it being a "public dwelling" See my previous post re: places of public accommodation. Any business open to the public is, by law, a place of public accommodation, not a private business. There is no such thing as a "private business" since the purpose of all business is to deal in some manner with the public at large.


Kinda-sorta agree here, in that it's what has _*become*_, but is this the "commerce clause" you're referring to?:

_To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another._

If so, I don't see anything here that says I, as an inidividual private entity, need to ask permission from the government to open a business.  Of course, if you ask me if I'd be comfortable eating in a restaurant without ventilation, fire suppression and sanitary standards, the answer is of course, no.

It's this far-reaching liberal interpretation of government power, promulgated by those who are brokering and meting out those powers, that have eroded our country to the point where we now can't have the choice to have smoking establishments to go to.

What I'm getting at is that a very little government goes a very long way, and we've gotten way beyond the notion that a little is just enough.


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

Blueface said:


> I truly fail to see what part of what you just captioned here states you have the right to do as you wish and impose your harmful smoke on someone else in a restaurant or they can just pick up an leave and go eat in instead?


Here we go again.

Because if it's *my restaurant*, if you as a nonsmoker don't want to have the smoke imposed on you, you have no right to impose your desire on me as the business owner.

I'll leave the rest alone for now.


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

Hammerhead said:


> I'll leave the rest alone for now.


No doubt.

Boils down to you believing it is your right to do as you wish? That is what I got out of the majority of the posts.
You never addressed my follow up on being able to have sex in a restaurant as a right. I say we have a herf and try it out and see how many of us don't need to be bailed out.

I simply say you need to be open minded and accept that your beliefs and what you perceive to be your rights may not necessarily coincide with that of most humans that share this globe. You have a right to think you right. Whether you are right or not is another debate.


----------



## ResIpsa (Mar 8, 2006)

Am referring to the Interstate Commerce Clause. This is exactly what I am talking about when I encourage you to read decisions of the SCOTUS and not simply look at the text of the Constitution itself. Here is a starting point in laymans language for you.

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery...ab=2222_1&sbid=lc07a&linktext=Commerce Clause



Hammerhead said:


> Kinda-sorta agree here, in that it's what has _*become*_, but is this the "commerce clause" you're referring to?:
> 
> _To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
> 
> ...


----------



## PuroBrat (Sep 8, 2005)

Here ya go:

1. I open a restaurant and a Bar, with a huge smoking lounge.
2. On the door is a sign:


> This establishment is a Private Club open only by invitation.
> call 940-555-1212 for an invitation.
> This establishment maintains a Smoking Policy that all areas
> are designated smoking areas.
> ...


Everybody satisfied?


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

Hammerhead said:


> So, then, which would you rather live in?


How do you mean?



> *Representative democracy* is a political system where the people vote on government members, who are then expected to make decisions in accordance with the interests of their voters. It is called representative because the people do not vote on government decisions directly, but elect representatives to decide for them.
> 
> *Liberal democracy* is a type of representative democracy where the ruling government is subject to rule of law and separation of powers, while the people are guaranteed certain inviolable rights.


Last time I checked I voted for my officials (hence representative democracy) and there is a seperation of power and there are rights I am guaranteed such as the right to vote (hence liberal democracy). So tell me, where do you live? Are you not given the right to vote? Are officials just appointed by other officials in your part of Jersey?


----------



## ResIpsa (Mar 8, 2006)

Sorry PuroBrat, but NO CIGAR FOR YOU. (For those who miss the Seinfeld reference, my apologies.) I hereby vote myself into office in this thread as "The Cigar Nazi." Simply calling yourself a private club doens't work, at least not here in NY. To actually BE a private club you must meet certain tests (which I will not bore everyone with). I imagine this is the case in other states as well.


PuroBrat said:


> Here ya go:
> 
> 1. I open a restaurant and a Bar, with a huge smoking lounge.
> 2. On the door is a sign:
> Everybody satisfied?


----------



## PuroBrat (Sep 8, 2005)

ResIpsa said:


> Sorry PuroBrat, but NO CIGAR FOR YOU. (For those who miss the Seinfeld reference, my apologies.) I hereby vote myself into office in this thread as "The Cigar Nazi." Simply calling yourself a private club doens't work, at least not here in NY. To actually BE a private club you must meet certain tests (which I will not bore everyone with). I imagine this is the case in other states as well.


Fine, I will put my damn walk-in humi, my coffee shop and my lounge IN MY HOUSE, and friends can drop by when they wish, and if they wish to contribute to the cause there will be a jar in the Foyer. How long do you think it would be before some politician figures out a way to stop me from smoking or allowing smoking in MY OWN HOME. I bet they would start to work on it right away. Assuming you believe they aren't already trying.


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

Blueface said:


> No doubt.
> 
> Boils down to you believing it is your right to do as you wish? That is what I got out of the majority of the posts.
> You never addressed my follow up on being able to have sex in a restaurant as a right. I say we have a herf and try it out and see how many of us don't need to be bailed out.
> ...


I didn't respond to your other things because I just didn't understand where you were going with bombing NYC to prevent NYC from being bombed. Maybe someone else can help me out so I can reply. I wasn't avoiding your question, I just didn't fathom it.

Yes, I do have a right to do as I wish as long as I don't impact anyone around me. Please refer back to my post #52 where I acknowledge that my rights end where yours begin. I guess that got lost in the sauce.

Let me change the scenario so I can clarify where I'm at.

1) I open an Italian restaurant.
2) I operate within the confines of the law, in that all regulations regarding electrical, fire, healt and other codes are observed.
3) I pay my taxes
4) Suddenly, a group of people who don't like Italian food push for a bill to ban garlic in all public areas because it smells bad, and because they've been led to believe (rightly or wrongly) that it's bad for you.
5) As a result, I lose my clientele because the government has banned garlic in my restaurant.

What you're positing is that the "right" to eat in a garlic-free environment trumps my rights to operate a business and target my clientele as I see fit. Does not my right to make a living and operate a business not trump your right to not smell garlic, especially when you can go to any other type of restaurant?

Now, let's take that one step further, because history and experience have proven that legislation and government sprawl doesn't stop in just one area.

The legislatures of NY, NJ, HI and other states have banned smoking in "public" areas (quotes used intentionally); how long do you think it will be before smoking in your own home is banned?

You see, per ResIpsa's view, your home sits on property that receives a public benefit, so that gives the goverment the right to force you to never smoke in your own home. So, will you still believe that the "rights" of a body of people who are not your business partners, have no stake in your livelihood, and

Finally, the question that none of you - not a one - have answere is:
*Are we, as a nation, trending toward more freedom, or less freedom?*


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

carbonbased_al said:


> How do you mean?
> 
> Last time I checked I voted for my officials (hence representative democracy) and there is a seperation of power and there are rights I am guaranteed such as the right to vote (hence liberal democracy). So tell me, where do you live? Are you not given the right to vote? Are officials just appointed by other officials in your part of Jersey?


Yes, Joe, they are just appointed - Chief of Police, Supreme Court Justices, Attorney General... all of these officials impact the laws and politics here.

It's clear you have no idea how things work in New Jersey. Let's not get into it now. What they show on "Schoolhouse Rock" about bills becoming laws doesn't bear any resemblence to what happens in this state.

Voted for a representative, did you? I don't suppose you recall when the Democrats pulled out their loser Torricelli and put in that old fossil Lautenberg despite the F'n LAWS that prohibited doing it, and it was rubber stamped by the NJ Supreme Court who were all politically appointed hacks.

They did that, because they knew the Republican would win against the corrupt POS that he was running against.

So if you think you live in a representative democracy here in this state, I'd say you're deluding yourself.

Suffice to say, there's a reason why The Sopranos is set in New Jersey.


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

Hammerhead said:


> Yes, Joe, they are just appointed. It's clear you have no idea how things work in New Jersey. Let's not get into it now. What they show on "Schoolhouse Rock" about bills becoming laws doesn't bear any resemblence to what happens in this state.
> 
> Suffice to say, there's a reason why The Sopranos is set in New Jersey.


Really? Funny, I remember voting for governor, counselmen, senate, etc. Guess it doesn't matter though, they just picked. That's why they wasted all those millions on their campaigns 

I still had a choice, it's still a representative democracy. Your just spewing rhetoric now man.


----------



## RcktS4 (Jan 13, 2005)

Hammerhead said:


> Let me change the scenario so I can clarify where I'm at.
> 
> 1) I open an Italian restaurant.
> 2) I operate within the confines of the law, in that all regulations regarding electrical, fire, healt and other codes are observed.
> ...


just to jump in - this is hopelessly flawed. If the garlic was shown to cause cancer to the eaters, the people next to the eaters, and the serrvice/cooking staff then this is entirely reasonable. Now the point here isn't whether 2nd hand smoke is really dangerous or not (that's still open for debate AFAIC) but in terms of the legslature, it has essentially been decided that 2nd hand smoke is extremely hazardous. Are you allowed to sell radioactive garlic because some people like it?



HH said:


> Finally, the question that none of you - not a one - have answere is:
> *Are we, as a nation, trending toward more freedom, or less freedom?*


I'll answer that: Less freedom. To say anything less is ridiculous. But the point you are missing is that the people limiting (and voting to limit) those freedoms are doing because of the perceived health benefits. Personally, Id rather live 60 years and enjoy my vices and freedoms than live 80 years and be forced to eat tofu and wheat grass, but the majority of americans disagrees with me.

I like to smoke, and I think there is a disturbing trend toward litigating political correctness at work right now, but personally I find the idea of fighting this on constitutional grounds a bit ridiculous. If second hand smoke is indeed (as most of the country readily believes) hazardous to the health of others, society absolutely has the right to curtail it's presence.

I don't agree with it, I don't like it, but my constitutional rights do not extend to putting carcinogens into others' path. If you want to fight this, I think constitutional basis is the wrong place to try to do it. There is another disturbing trend I see right now whereby everybody and his step-daughter's dog thinks he understands the law better than the SCOTUS, and use their non-expertise to try to make everyone else obey their will.

:2


----------



## ResIpsa (Mar 8, 2006)

No, that is not what I told you. The post you refer to spoke of businesses I believe, although I could be wrong. The SCOTUS has been pretty consistent that a "man's" home is his castle, and that privacy and other constitutional rights are heightened in the home. But you still misunderstand. I still do not have a consitutional right to do whatever the hell i want inside of my own home. I cannot molest children,(not to imply anyone here wants to) not even in my own home, I cannot have a pot farm, a magic mushroom farm or whatever even inside of my own home. I cannot distill alcohol, even in my own home, and the list goes on and on.


Hammerhead said:


> You see, per ResIpsa's view, your home sits on property that receives a public benefit, so that gives the goverment the right to force you to never smoke in your own home.


----------



## ResIpsa (Mar 8, 2006)

I couldn't have said it better. There is a reason that these people are on the SCOTUS, both now and in the past. You may disagree with their opinions, but they got there because they were/are considered to be amongst the finest legal minds of their generations.


RcktS4 said:


> There is another disturbing trend I see right now whereby everybody and his step-daughter's dog thinks he understands the law better than the SCOTUS, and use their non-expertise to try to make everyone else obey their will.:2


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

RcktS4 said:


> just to jump in - this is hopelessly flawed. If the garlic was shown to cause cancer to the eaters, the people next to the eaters, and the serrvice/cooking staff then this is entirely reasonable.
> *Raney, it was illustrative. Please note the part where I said "because they've been led to believe (rightly or wrongly) that it's bad for you." Therefore, you acknowledge the illustration as valid because it's by changing the circumstances that I illustrate there is a serious question here about what right any one person has to eat in any given place, and how the "rights" of non-garlic eaters do not necessarily trump the owner of the restaurant, or those who wish to eat garlic in an establishment that caters to garlic eaters.*
> 
> I'll answer that: Less freedom. To say anything less is ridiculous... Personally, Id rather live 60 years and enjoy my vices and freedoms than live 80 years and be forced to eat tofu and wheat grass, but the majority of americans disagrees with me.
> ...


Answers in line. And then one last question to go along with it just for kicks, if we're trending toward LESS freedom, why is it that you think it's happening?


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

ResIpsa said:


> ...The post you refer to spoke of businesses I believe, although I could be wrong. The SCOTUS has been pretty consistent that a "man's" home is his castle, and that privacy and other constitutional rights are heightened in the home... I still do not have a consitutional right to do whatever the hell i want inside of my own home.


Fair 'nuff, I must have misunderstood the point re: businesses, but we do agree on pot, kiddie **** and mushroom farms because they are, themselves, illegal. Tobacco is not. Not yet, at least. But if we don't do something now, it surely will be. Then garlic won't be far behind.


----------



## RcktS4 (Jan 13, 2005)

Hammerhead said:


> Answers in line. And then one last question to go along with it just for kicks, if we're trending toward LESS freedom, why is it that you think it's happening?


I have absolutely no question in my mind why it's happening: because we are a culture dominated by fear and insecurity. We are so terrified of poor health and death, and so hopelessly convinced that everything that ever goes wrong must be someone's fault that we are legislating all sorts of absurdities. i think this leads directly to the political conflicts, the 'lawsuit' nation we now have, and the ridiculous demands people put on their healthcare. "Victim culture" - selfish, blaming, unforgiving, and prone to self-righteousness.

Personally, I am generally much more interested in approaching the underlying psychological issue as I see it at a personal level than at the political level. Our political system, as I think you are saying, is indeed 'broken' in may ways, but short of a coup I see no way to truly correct it from within. In fact, I think the political system is currently just a reflection of the personal psychology which seems to dominate much of our contry, and even if we did have a massive revolution, we would be left with the same problems. IMO, this sort of psychology is in fact largely systemic of great cultures which are beginning to atrophy.

"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it" - Einstein


----------



## rumballs (Mar 15, 2005)

RcktS4 said:


> I have absolutely no question in my mind why it's happening: because we are a culture dominated by fear and insecurity. We are so terrified of poor health and death, and so hopelessly convinced that everything that ever goes wrong must be someone's fault that we are legislating all sorts of absurdities. i think this leads directly to the political conflicts, the 'lawsuit' nation we now have, and the ridiculous demands people put on their healthcare. "Victim culture" - selfish, blaming, unforgiving, and prone to self-righteousness.


Example of the day:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/03/29/apple.volume.ap/index.html


----------



## rjose (Jul 7, 2005)

RcktS4 said:


> I have absolutely no question in my mind why it's happening: because we are a culture dominated by fear and insecurity.


Exactly!

Fear=Control

Right out of 1984.


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

RcktS4 said:


> I have absolutely no question in my mind why it's happening: because we are a culture dominated by fear and insecurity... and so hopelessly convinced that everything that ever goes wrong must be someone's fault that we are legislating all sorts of absurdities.
> 
> Personally, I am generally much more interested in approaching the underlying psychological issue as I see it at a personal level than at the political level.


Raney, I owe you a beer and a smoke for this one. We've often disagreed, but on this one you couldn't be more right. And it's for this reason that I've been (figuratively) jumping up and down, using 1st Principles of Liberty, to approach a change to that underlying psychological motivator, among a community that's already susceptible to the point.

Furthermore, it's this psycho-political unholy alliance that perpetuates and feeds upon itself, gaining inertia and threatening to crash us all into the abyss of totalitarianism. There's no difference in my mind if my liberties are stolen by an elected body, or a tyrant. They're destroyed all the same either way.



> Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
> *- Benjamin Franklin*


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

Hammerhead said:


> I didn't respond to your other things because I just didn't understand where you were going with bombing NYC to prevent NYC from being bombed. Maybe someone else can help me out so I can reply. I wasn't avoiding your question, I just didn't fathom it.
> 
> Yes, I do have a right to do as I wish as long as I don't impact anyone around me. Please refer back to my post #52 where I acknowledge that my rights end where yours begin. I guess that got lost in the sauce.
> 
> ...


Hammer, now its YOU that opens the restaurant?
I thought the whole debate was over you and I going to a restaurant to eat with our respective families and you (because you feel it is your right) smoke in the restaurant and I (who doesn't want to eat an expensive steak with smoke all in my face) have to stay in my room and eat in? The reason for that is that I can just leave if I don't like it is what I recall you saying.

What about the sex question on the restaurant table? Do we have the constitutional right to do that? You haven't addressed that one that I can see.

Remember that in all these posts?


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

Hammerhead said:


> Yes, I do have a right to do as I wish as long as I don't impact anyone around me.


Now we are getting somewhere.
So, you don't think smoking in a restaurant in front of kids is not impacting anyone around you?


----------



## MikeP (Jan 12, 2006)

ResIpsa said:


> No, that is not what I told you. The post you refer to spoke of businesses I believe, although I could be wrong. The SCOTUS has been pretty consistent that a "man's" home is his castle, and that privacy and other constitutional rights are heightened in the home. But you still misunderstand. I still do not have a consitutional right to do whatever the hell i want inside of my own home. I cannot molest children,(not to imply anyone here wants to) not even in my own home, I cannot have a pot farm, a magic mushroom farm or whatever even inside of my own home. I cannot distill alcohol, even in my own home, and the list goes on and on.


So where are you drawing the line as to what government can ban, even in the home? If tobacco is outlawed by our government, I suppose that even in our homes we couldn't smoke cigars?

Funny, I think they tried the same think with alcohol but it required a constitutional amendment.


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

Blueface said:


> Hammer, now its YOU that opens the restaurant?
> I thought the whole debate was over you and I going to a restaurant to eat with our respective families and you (because you feel it is your right) smoke in the restaurant and I (who doesn't want to eat an expensive steak with smoke all in my face) have to stay in my room and eat in? The reason for that is that I can just leave if I don't like it is what I recall you saying.
> 
> What about the sex question on the restaurant table? Do we have the constitutional right to do that? You haven't addressed that one that I can see.
> ...


Oh, fercryinoutloud.

Dude, it's the *illustration *that's important, not who actually _owns _the restaurant.

Can someone else help out here? It seems I'm just not getting the example across.

In the meantime, let me try again with another example.


Let's say there are TWO restaurants.
One restaurant has a NON smoking policy.
The other restaurant caters to SMOKERS.
You and I go to the first restaurant. I want to smoke, but they have a nonsmoking policy; therefore I either CHOOSE to eat there and NOT smoke, or go to another restaurant.
Now let's go to the second restaurant. You don't want to smoke, but you see that there aren't any NON-SMOKING sections; therefore either you CHOOSE to eat there and breathe the smoke, or go back to the first restaurant.

Along comes a law that says that in the 2nd restaurant they have forced the owner, and all of those customers, to NOT smoke, despite the fact that this second establishment is a cigar-steakhouse. *Now*, whose rights have been trampled?

So, in the end, one way, three groups of people have choices: smokers, nonsmokers and business owners. Now nobody has a choice. Goverment:1, The People:0

Do you see it now? I don't know how else I can draw the example.


----------



## RcktS4 (Jan 13, 2005)

Hammerhead said:


> Raney, I owe you a beer and a smoke for this one. We've often disagreed, but on this one you couldn't be more right. And it's for this reason that I've been (figuratively) jumping up and down, using 1st Principles of Liberty, to approach a change to that underlying psychological motivator, among a community that's already susceptible to the point.
> 
> Furthermore, it's this psycho-political unholy alliance that perpetuates and feeds upon itself, gaining inertia and threatening to crash us all into the abyss of totalitarianism. There's no difference in my mind if my liberties are stolen by an elected body, or a tyrant. They're destroyed all the same either way.


Agreed, though we seem to differ in how we choose to address this.

I have this conversation with people a lot about politics, which to be honest is essentially a lost cause to me. Without a shift in personal values and consciouness throughout a large chunk of the population, our political system is doomed to remain an essentially parasitic and self-serving institution IMO. It's a society thing, not a legislature thing to me (though i don't disagree that there are legislature problems.)

An example is the welfare system: as far as I can tell, there is NO good reform to this system, _including_ its abolishment. Until we alter the welfare state membership's approach to the world, AND alter the world's response to 'underprivileged' (I think both sides of the equation need a lot of work) the best we can hope for is a thumb in the ****.

I think this also applies to most of the other 'issues of the day' including Roe v. Wade, immigration, Gun Control, civil liberties, healthcare, education, and most of the other 'hot button' topics around today.

I am extremely glad that there are people voraciously dissecting politics and government, but I am not one of them. This is just not my thing, as to my view it appears hopelessly limited. I suppose it's just a result of 'who I am' and 'who you are' - so no problem there as far as I can see.


----------



## DWSC_Bob (Sep 12, 2005)

1) Just because someone is in the SCOTUS does prove they are the best or brightest. No denying that the SCOTUS has been politically influenced in their devision making over the years.
2) Property Rights should be absolute. It balances out. That does not mean you can do whatever you wish on your property, it means you can do anything that does not deny someone else their property rights. Everything else is defined by morality or politics. The example of a child molester or rapist for exampl, as extreme as it is, no you cannot do these things (including murder) because they violate the rights of the vicxtim to their property, no matter where you do it. Do not confuse property rights to being confined to your home or land. They travel with you. You have the right to protect and maintain ownership of your property at all times, not just at home.
3) Second hand smoke may be flawed science, may not. But where does it stop? Today employers are discriminating against smokers, next it may be fatty's (like me) or old people because they all drive up the cost of insurance. Remember group insurance only works because it spreads the cost across many heads, some healthier than others. Just because it is bad for me does not give the government the 'right' to deny it to me. Only in cases where there is an overwhelming 'greater good' is this supposed to occur. Widespread drug addiction, drunk driving (again violates the rights ot others) and labor regulations fall in to this category.
4) Our history is riddled with laws that were politically or morally expedient. Get used to it and vote for those that support what you want.
5) Smoking bans, like all other such rules, are cyclical. As society accepts or reg=jects a particular practice it will move from illegal/unmoral to accepted. Pick your own example.
6) it is not absolute, very few things are and even less are permanent.

Sit back, take a deep breath and light up a good cigar.


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

RcktS4 said:


> I have this conversation with people a lot about politics, which to be honest is essentially a lost cause to me. Without a shift in personal values and consciouness throughout a large chunk of the population, our political system is doomed to remain an essentially parasitic and self-serving institution IMO. It's a society thing, not a legislature thing to me (though i don't disagree that there are legislature problems.)


Yes, but I attribute it more to the machinations and mindlessness of government. We were warned by our Founders. And what's happened is that in relying on government to do things for us, we've created the culture of which you speak where we can't manage to think or do for ourselves.

So, where do you start? I say with redacting government, because it got this way by increasing it, so one must necessarily move to the end the way you began, by decreasing it.

Another day on this one, but I think we're on the same page, here.


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

Hammerhead said:


> Oh, fercryinoutloud.
> 
> Dude, it's the *illustration *that's important, not who actually _owns _the restaurant.
> 
> ...


OK, I have been a part of this thread for a while and do recall vividly what you stated and in fact, it is there for the viewing.
I guess I am hung up on your original point and you have evolved?
You now support what I clearly support. That we be allowed to have establishments specifically for smokers (read my prior responses to TTGirl).
That is not what you said earlier.
You clearly stated that I should eat in my hotel room if I didn't like the smoke in the restaurant.
You have clearly changed your point or it didn't come across as intended.
Understand that by having a restaurant that has both smoking and non smoking in the same facility, that is a joke in most places. You breathe the same air and often times the smoking section is the next table (literally next) to the non smoking.
So, a smoking restaurant on one side, and a non smoking across the street - that is totally cool and precisely what I have stated and would support. How do we accomplish that? Through the idiots we elect. Again, the specifics you have stated until now did not have this conotation.

To quote you, "Can someone else help out here? It seems I'm just not getting the example across".


----------



## ResIpsa (Mar 8, 2006)

Mike, take a look at my previous posts. First of all _I_ am not drawing any lines anywhere. I'm simply reporting constitutional law and process as it works. 2) Uh, YEAH same as you can't molest kids in your home, or grow pot. 3) Who is the "they" you refer to? Again, take a look at my posts, the they you refer to is YOU, your friends, neighbors and family. The "they" in office back during the Prohibition era is not the same "they" in office now. Those who believe in governmental conspiracy theories conveniently ignore the fact that the legislators in office change. And by the way, you might recall that the amendment passed, which again was done by YOU the people.


MikeP said:


> So where are you drawing the line as to what government can ban, even in the home? If tobacco is outlawed by our government, I suppose that even in our homes we couldn't smoke cigars?
> 
> Funny, I think they tried the same think with alcohol but it required a constitutional amendment.


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

Blueface said:


> I guess I am hung up on your original point and you have evolved? That we be allowed to have establishments specifically for smokers (read my prior responses to TTGirl).
> That is not what you said earlier.


No, my points regarding Las Vegas still stand.


You went to Vegas knowing what the deal was.
You had a choice to find a nonsmoking restaurant, but you didn't even try to find one.
You could have found a way to eat a steak without smoke
You chose to eat there knowing the conditions as they were.
Your *desire* (another word would be 'preference') to eat a steak in that particular establishment does not trump the owner's *right* to run that business as he wishes, nor does your *desire* for a smoke-free steak trump the rights of those who were already at the restaurant.

I'm also willing to bet that you didn't even mention to the management that they ought to create a nonsmoking area with electronic cleansers, because he might be catering to a new clientele.

If you believe in nonsmoking establishments so much, then invest your money in a business that will do that. And your rights as the owner of that restaurant to refuse smoking customers will be enforced by the existing laws on the books.

As to two different kinds of establishments, based on your paradigm of "rights", that just wouldn't work any better than having separate sections in two different areas because your choice of preferring the nonsmokers rights to the rights of smokers trumps that, too.

Anyway, I've done all I can here. Is anyone else here confused by my illustration? I'm not sure if I can say it any other way, but I'll try.


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

Hammerhead said:


> No, my points regarding Las Vegas still stand.
> 
> 
> You went to Vegas knowing what the deal was.
> ...


You have done all you can to sell your point. Problem is that you fail to see that of your neighbor. You are stuck on "your beliefs". I admire conviction but I truly believe you are blinded by your beliefs and fail to see your neighbor too has a say on this planet. Again, ours (Me too) is a filthy habit. A habit proven to cause bodily harm. I can really understand how our rights as you refer to them can be violated by the rights of the majority to not have to be exposed to our habit. That is all I am saying.

We will have to agree to disagree on this as it is clearly going nowhere.
I would like to believe I totally see your point and can understand why you feel the way you do.
You are just failing to see others have a right to diagree with you and those others are gradually winning the battle, and porbably rightfully so, if you were to ask them, who feel as strong about their beliefs as you do yours.


----------



## icehog3 (Feb 20, 2005)

So, how 'bout those Red Wings??


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

icehog3 said:


> So, how 'bout those Red Wings??


They are good boots, that's for sure!


----------



## PuroBrat (Sep 8, 2005)

icehog3 said:


> So, how 'bout those Red Wings??


Leather any thicker would be called a Steak!!


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

icehog3 said:


> So, how 'bout those Red Wings??


I would have guessed Blackhawks.


----------



## MikeP (Jan 12, 2006)

ResIpsa, when you get down to where the rubber meets the road I just simply disagree with many of your posts regarding "reporting constitutional law and process as it works." The fact is that what most of your posts simply express your opinion regarding the law and the constitution. I found one or two of your previous posts a bit insulting towards other members when you attempted to cloak yourself with the claim of expertise because you went through law school and have been admitted to the bar. The fact of the matter is that doesn't make you anymore of an expert on matters of government and constitutional law. 

I would disagree one of your previous posts where you seemed to allude to the constitution as being a living document. This is an opinion and many lawyers hold this view. I'm an attorney, I've studied the constitution and in a past life I've defended many of our "finer" citizens at the trial and appellate levels in criminal matters. I don't think any of us have unfettered rights that aren't subject to some government limitations. 

I don't really consider myself libertarian but more of a conservative. But you seem to hold the opinion that our rights are something handed down to us by the good graces of our constitution. Maybe I'm misstating your opinion - people's views tend to get lost in these long posts. As you've pointed out is a government of the people. History makes clear that it was the understanding of our founding fathers and the drafters of the constitution that our rights and freedom is a gift from God to each of us individually. Not from government. Not from the constitution or any other document. Power flows from God to us and then up the ladder of government. It was the old systems that our founding fathers rejected that held that power flowed from God to the king and then finally down to the people. 

When you get right down to it, our constitution originally had nothing to do with state and local affairs. It was a document limited to dealing with the issues that came about under the article of confederation. The constitution said that there were certain things that only the federal government could now do (the states gave up certain rights). The feds regulated interstate trade. The feds printed currency. The feds dealt with matters of an international nature. It was never even contemplated that the bill of rights would be imposed against the states. It wasn't until the 14th amendment was enacted that the bill of rights began being selectively incorporated through that amendment were they imposed against the states. 

It was intended that the states and local governments protect the freedoms and rights contained in the bill of rights. They are the closest to the people and therefore should be most responsive to the people. We can more easily change a local law and local leadership than those in Washington. The danger is in the shifting of power away from local govt to the fed. 

Anyway, I'm tired, I don't remember my point anymore and need to go out to get a drink before happy hour ends. I am sure that it will be a smoking establishment but that is fine with me. And while I am tempted I need to quit reading this thread.:u


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

NOW is when this is really getting good.

Two attorneys going at it.

Lets keep in clean gentlemen.
No hitting below the belt.
No saving by the bell.
3 point must scoring system.

Get some popcorn, sit back, lets enjoy.

P.S.
Some trash talk before the bell:
You fall in a hole.
There is a lion, a tiger and an attorney.
You have a gun and it has two bullets.
What do you do?
Only logical answer is shoot the attorney twice.

Lets get readyyyyyyyyyyyyyy to rumble
DING! DING! DING! (bell - not negative CS ring)


----------



## ResIpsa (Mar 8, 2006)

:bx Well Mike, hmmmmmm......you claim that my posts are my opinion, then go on to state your own opinions.....certainly an interesting tack to take. I have tried to be as factual as possible, such as where i provided a link for Hammer to go read about the Interstate Commerce Clause....which, come to think of it, never heard back from him on if there is something specfic that you think is my opinion and not fact, by all means point it out to me. And while I have tried to make it clear that I make no claiam to being a constitutional law expert, I find your comment that I am no more of an expert on constitutional law than a layperson to be a little foolish. Lawyers, by virtue of having been admitted to a state bar and where applicable federal bar, are by their very nature more qualified to comment on matters of the law.....that is why they can represent others on legal matters, etc. etc. etc. And it doesn't matter if it is Con law or any other type of law.This is not to say that others don't know anything about the subject, or that I know all or anything along those lines. But to deny that lawyers know more about the law is to deny that plumbers know more about plumbing or electricians know more about electricity. From your signature line it seems you are down on your profession, sorry to hear that.:tg :bx


MikeP said:


> ResIpsa, when you get down to where the rubber meets the road I just simply disagree with many of your posts regarding "reporting constitutional law and process as it works." The fact is that what most of your posts simply express your opinion regarding the law and the constitution. I found one or two of your previous posts a bit insulting towards other members when you attempted to cloak yourself with the claim of expertise because you went through law school and have been admitted to the bar. The fact of the matter is that doesn't make you anymore of an expert on matters of government and constitutional law.
> 
> I would disagree one of your previous posts where you seemed to allude to the constitution as being a living document. This is an opinion and many lawyers hold this view. I'm an attorney, I've studied the constitution and in a past life I've defended many of our "finer" citizens at the trial and appellate levels in criminal matters. I don't think any of us have unfettered rights that aren't subject to some government limitations.
> 
> ...


----------



## ResIpsa (Mar 8, 2006)

Did I win round one??? did I, did I:SM


Blueface said:


> NOW is when this is really getting good.
> 
> Two attorneys going at it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 7, 2005)

Blueface said:


> You have done all you can to sell your point. Problem is that you fail to see that of your neighbor. You are stuck on "your beliefs".


My observation thus far is that I think that your personal experiences with family have caused you to be stuck on your beliefs and are not seeing that we're dealing with two paradigms: one where nobody has a choice because smoking is banned everywhere; and the second one where everybody has choices because we have the rights to decide what kind of places we wish to patronize and what kinds of businesses we wish to open.

That said, finally, I believe I have yet another way to explain it in a way that might make sense.

Is it not the job of our government to protect minority rights? For instance, was it not the job of our government to defend the rights of African Americans as equal under the law with all the rights and privilidges of any other American citizen?

It seems your justification for defending what's happened is because "majority rules" and shit on the smokers. But if you agree that ethnic minorities have rights, despite the fact that they're outnumbered, then you acknowledge by inclusion that the government's job is to defend the rights of minorities, such as SMOKERS, and that WE have rights, too.

I believe you're not "getting" this because you're looking at a current situation and validating it as right because it exists despite the fact that it's wrong-headed and will eventually fail, just as Prohibition failed. I'm looking at the current situation and rejecting it because it runs counter to our basic principles of protecting the rights of all our citizens, even those of smokers.

Anyway, this is where I get off the bus. I'll leave it to others to carry the torch here.


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

Hammerhead said:


> My observation thus far is that I think that your personal experiences with family have caused you to be stuck on your beliefs and are not seeing that we're dealing with two paradigms: one where nobody has a choice because smoking is banned everywhere; and the second one where everybody has choices because we have the rights to decide what kind of places we wish to patronize and what kinds of businesses we wish to open.
> 
> That said, finally, I believe I have yet another way to explain it in a way that might make sense.
> 
> ...


I think it is more fun to see legal minds debate it based on their education and knowledge of principles of law. I would like to see it continue down that path as I think we all stand to learn from it.

I have enjoyed the debate. It has been clean as it should be.
You and I are on the same side of the political spectrum, just have some variations to it as all do. That is what makes us all different.

Honestly not for the sake of the last word but just to address your comment on affirmative action, why would you think the government protects the rights of the minorities with things like "affirmative action"? I personally believe (being a minority myself who benefited from it) it has to do with what the majority decided to do, because in this case, at the time, it was the right thing. Although another debate of its own, affirmative action has wrongfully turned non minorities into the minority. I would argue that is equal or worse than not being able to smoke in a restaurant but we accept it until there are enough masses to change it.


----------



## croatan (Mar 23, 2005)

Blueface said:


> I think it is more fun to see legal minds debate it based on their education and knowledge of principles of law. I would like to see it continue down that path as I think we all stand to learn from it.


Don't get too excited, bro. All it takes is average intelligence, three extra years of schooling, and one test for someone to practice law. 

Personally, I think we need to do more to restrict those entering the profession. But that's another debate.


----------



## ResIpsa (Mar 8, 2006)

I'm on board brother. Here in NY they have already taken a small step by raising the bar pass score. I know that sounds like nothing, but keep in mind that NY, California and Florida are pretty much recognized as having the toughest exams in the country. For example: I needed to study for and know 27 different areas of the law. I believe New jersey tests 6. There has also been some discussion of requiring a period of some kind of working in a law office under the supervision of an experienced attorney prior to admittance to the bar. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.



croatan said:


> Don't get too excited, bro. All it takes is average intelligence, three extra years of schooling, and one test for someone to practice law.
> 
> Personally, I think we need to do more to restrict those entering the profession. But that's another debate.


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

ResIpsa said:


> I believe New jersey tests 6.


Damn, I should go into law :r


----------



## croatan (Mar 23, 2005)

ResIpsa said:


> I'm on board brother. Here in NY they have already taken a small step by raising the bar pass score. I know that sounds like nothing, but keep in mind that NY, California and Florida are pretty much recognized as having the toughest exams in the country. For example: I needed to study for and know 27 different areas of the law. I believe New jersey tests 6. There has also been some discussion of requiring a period of some kind of working in a law office under the supervision of an experienced attorney prior to admittance to the bar. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.


Yeah, I think that's a good thing. The overall pass rate here is usually around 72%-74%, but 80%-82% for first time takers. And that 80% is heavily weighed down by four schools that would happily admit my cat if I paid the tuition.


----------



## Ivory Tower (Nov 18, 2005)

croatan said:


> Don't get too excited, bro. All it takes is average intelligence, three extra years of schooling


What doesn't?


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

Ivory Tower said:


> What doesn't?


Everything that doesn't take 3 extra years of schooling?


----------



## ResIpsa (Mar 8, 2006)

Criminy!! Overall pass rate here under the old standard was 60-65%, for first timers around 70-75%. Februrarys exam was the first with the tougher standards, so will be interesting to see what effect that has. I've never really understood why the pass rate goes down the more you take the test, logically it seems to me it would go because you know what to expect.


croatan said:


> The overall pass rate here is usually around 72%-74%, but 80%-82% for first time takers.


----------



## MikeP (Jan 12, 2006)

Actually I'm not down on my profession. I think it is a great profession and I believe I can say that I'm very proud of what I've done in practice. But I'm the type of person - and this is just my opinion - that finds it a more honorable thing to defend people accused of dealing drugs, stealing, etc. than to see my face painted across some billboard advertising that I'm here for you if you've been injured in an accident. I'd rather stand next to some guy that people would consider the scum of society than be a part of the masses of attorneys (and we are graduating them from law schools like crazy - we are a dime a dozen at this point) drumming up more and more litigation making themselves the big bucks and in the end we're all paying. 

I think this is a great and honorable profession but its not without its faults. Its no wonder there are hundreds of lawyer jokes out there. The perception of the general public about lawyers is something that our profession has brought on itself.


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

MikeP said:


> drumming up more and more litigation making themselves the big bucks and in the end we're all paying.
> 
> *Mike, the very same group I have faced for nearly 25 years in claims management in Personal Lines insurance. No love lost.*
> 
> Its no wonder there are hundreds of lawyer jokes out there.


Can't help it. One more.
Why won't sharks attack lawyers?
Professional courtesy.


----------



## ResIpsa (Mar 8, 2006)

Agree with you 1,000%. I am a civil rights lawyer for the government, trust me I know I could make a LOT more green out there in private practice. I do what I do because I believe the work to be important. And I know a lot of people who filing frivolous lawsuits, driving down the name of the profession every day. If it were up to me the courts would start sanctioning a lot more attorneys for friovolous suits, and that may be a start to getting somewhere.


MikeP said:


> Actually I'm not down on my profession. I think it is a great profession and I believe I can say that I'm very proud of what I've done in practice. But I'm the type of person - and this is just my opinion - that finds it a more honorable thing to defend people accused of dealing drugs, stealing, etc. than to see my face painted across some billboard advertising that I'm here for you if you've been injured in an accident. I'd rather stand next to some guy that people would consider the scum of society than be a part of the masses of attorneys (and we are graduating them from law schools like crazy - we are a dime a dozen at this point) drumming up more and more litigation making themselves the big bucks and in the end we're all paying.
> 
> I think this is a great and honorable profession but its not without its faults. Its no wonder there are hundreds of lawyer jokes out there. The perception of the general public about lawyers is something that our profession has brought on itself.


----------



## Ivory Tower (Nov 18, 2005)

MikeP said:


> I'd rather stand next to some guy that people would consider the scum of society


Because they may have good Habanos?


----------



## Mr. White (Dec 4, 2004)

Puro.Esq. said:


> There is no Constitutional right to smoke unlike the rights of free speech and free press etc.
> 
> I too have problems with the loud minority dictating what the majority can and cannot do with their personal lives . . . there is no Constitutional issue with regard to the anti-smoking laws.


Well, I'd say "Persuit of happiness" sort of fits in here. hehe.

I mean strictly speaking there are a lot of things going on in this country right now that could easily be deemed unconstitutional, but what's unconstitutional and what's unlawful don't really mean the same thing.

And until someone decides to take the bans all the way to the supreme court for a ruling, there isn't really anything to be done about it.


----------



## fitzsmoke (Mar 9, 2006)

The older I get the more Libertarian I become. I wish there were a rule that every time a lawmaker proposes a new law, he or she would have to decide on an existing law they are willing to remove from the books.:u


----------

